Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

File No. CIC/BHELD/A/2021/125628 + CIC/BHELD/A/2021/143615 + CIC/BHELD/A/2021/144997

Disposition

Attorney(S)

Judges

Saroj Punhani, IC

Acts

section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.6.
Section 8(l)(j) of RTI Act
Section 2(f) of RTI Act.16.
Section 10 of RTI Act.18.
Section 2(f) of RTI Act.13.
provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.The RTI Act
section 2(f) of the RTI Act,
Section 2(f)
provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.9.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Commission Opinion — Structured Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant filed multiple RTI applications with BHEL seeking information concerning correspondence, invoices, receipt of a prior RTI, guarantee period and withheld amounts, action taken reports and internal note sheets, and contact details of the CPIO and First Appellate Authority. The RTI applications specifically mentioned dates including 02.03.2021, 21.06.2021 and 06.07.2021 and requested, inter alia, whether certain letters were received (listed by reference numbers and dates), details about C forms and invoices for M/s. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd., and action taken on particular letters.

The CPIO responded to the requests by refusing disclosure on grounds that the information was third-party/personal and exempt under Section 8(1)(j), or by stating that the requests amounted to queries/grievances outside the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and in one instance invoked a ground that compiling the information would disproportionately divert public resources (identified in the reply as Section 7(9)). The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the replies in each appeal.

The Appellant filed Second Appeals to the Commission. A hearing was conducted with the Appellant and the CPIO present by audio-conference. The Commission examined the record, the correspondence, and the submissions of both sides.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the information sought falls within the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act (i.e., whether requests such as action taken report and receipt of letters constitute "information").
Whether the information is exempt from disclosure as third-party or personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Whether the requests in the RTI applications are properly characterisable as queries, grievances or requests for redressal (and thus outside the scope of the RTI Act), as contended by the CPIO and FAA.
Whether compiling the requested information would disproportionately divert public resources (as asserted by the CPIO in reliance on the provision identified as Section 7(9) in replies).
Whether the FAA erred in not considering the Appellant's clarification of his relationship (locus) with M/s. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd. when adjudicating the first appeals.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The Appellant contended that the information sought (including letters, action taken reports, guarantee-period details, and receipt of prior RTI) falls within the definition of information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The Appellant stated that he sought certain information in his capacity as Managing Director of M/s. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd., and that this point was clarified in the First Appeal but ignored by the FAA.
The Appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the CPIO's replies, describing them as evasive and inadequate under the Act.

Respondent's (CPIO/FAA) Arguments

The CPIO maintained that the information sought related to a commercial contract involving M/s. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd., and that such information is third-party/personal in nature with no larger public interest, invoking Section 8(1)(j) as the basis for exemption.
The CPIO argued that many of the requests were in the form of queries, questions, comments or grievances and therefore did not qualify as "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The CPIO asserted that compiling the requested information would disproportionately divert public resources and relied on a provision identified in their replies (described as Section 7(9)) to refuse or limit disclosure.
The Respondent submitted that the Appellant and associates had filed multiple, repetitive RTI applications seeking the same questions and that the RTI Act is not the proper forum for redressal of contractual grievances, citing a prior decision in H.K. Bansai v. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL (Decision No. CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013) to support the proposition that RTI is not meant for grievance redressal.
The CPIO also argued that the Appellant's disclosure of his relationship with the vendor at the appeal stage was not permissible and that the Appellant's pattern of filings amounted to misuse of the RTI Act.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
H.K. Bansai v. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL — Decision No. CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013	That the RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes and that other appropriate forums exist for resolving such matters.	The CPIO relied on this decision to support the refusal of information on the ground that the Appellant was seeking redressal of contractual grievances through RTI. The Commission noted the citation in the respondent's submissions but rejected the broad application of the refusal where the requested material (for example, action taken reports) plainly falls within the definition of "information" under Section 2(f).

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission examined the records and submissions and reached the following conclusions based on the material before it:

Nature of replies: The Commission found that the replies given by the CPIO to each RTI application were "totally evasive" and failed to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission took particular exception to the manner of the responses rather than accepting the refusals at face value.
FAA's conduct: The Commission specifically recorded grave exception to the FAA's conduct in not considering the Appellant's clarification in the First Appeal regarding his locus as Managing Director of the vendor (M/s. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd.) when adjudicating the appeals. The Commission held that the FAA failed properly to execute statutory duties under the RTI Act in this regard and recorded adverse remarks, marking a copy of its order to the FAA.
Scope of "information" under Section 2(f): The Commission analysed the character of specific requests and held that certain items sought — notably the "action taken report" and similar factual records — clearly fall within the ambit of "information" as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the plea that such requests are merely queries/grievances outside the Act was rejected for those items.
On exemptions and severance: While the Commission required disclosure of information found to be within the Act, it recognised that genuinely exempt material (for example, names or identifying particulars of officers/third parties covered by Section 8(1)(j)) may be withheld. The Commission directed that the CPIO may redact such exempt particulars and perform severance of records in accordance with Section 10 of the RTI Act.
Remedial directions: Because the CPIO's prior replies were found deficient, the Commission directed a revisit of each RTI application, requiring the CPIO to provide point-wise, revised categorical replies with relevant information as available, subject to permissible redactions.
Administrative admonitions: The Commission recorded adverse remarks against the FAA for failing to discharge duties properly and advised the CPIO to exercise due diligence when responding to RTI applications in future. The CPIO agreed to abide by the Commission's directions.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeals were disposed of by the Commission. The Commission directed the CPIO to revisit and provide point-wise revised categorical replies and relevant information against each RTI application, allowing for redaction of exempt particulars under Section 8(1)(j) and severance under Section 10. The Commission recorded adverse remarks against the FAA for not properly considering the Appellant's clarification of locus.

Direct Consequences and Implementation

The CPIO is directed to provide the revised replies and information, free of cost, to the Appellant within 15 days from receipt of the Commission's order and to inform the Commission accordingly.
The CPIO is permitted to redact names/identifying particulars of officers/third parties exempt under Section 8(1)(j) and to perform severance under Section 10 when providing information.
The Commission recorded adverse remarks regarding the FAA's conduct and marked a copy of the order to the FAA for taking note of the displeasure recorded.

Broader Implications

The Commission's decision focused on correcting procedural deficiencies in the replies and in the FAA's adjudication rather than announcing a novel legal principle. The opinion emphasises that while grievances or requests for redressal are not necessarily the proper subject of RTI, factual records such as action taken reports fall within the statutory definition of "information" under Section 2(f). No broader precedent beyond the directions and adverse remarks recorded in this matter is articulated in the opinion.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

K.S. Jain v. Central Public Information Officer, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. .

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.03.2021 seeking the following information:

“(1) Information if following letters were received in BHEL office. If so date of receipt may be provided.

(a) J5/0151/2018-19 DT.25/05/2018

(b) J5/0195/2018-19 DT. 08/06/2018 Reminder-1

(d) J5/646 dt. 29/07/2020 Reminder-Ill

(e) J5/704 dt.15/09/2020 Reminder-lV

(f) J5/824/2021 dt.19/01/2021

(2) lnformation if Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd., invoice No. 003 dt. 02/11/2015 and 001 dt 01/04/2016 mentions CST@2% against issue of ‘C form.

(3) lnformation if RTI application No. J5/693/2020 dt. 14/09/2020 was received.

(4) The date when guarantee period for DG set supplied against above order was over/had expired.

(5) lnformation when the withheld amount towards guarantee period was released.

(6) lnformation under which clause of order vendor is reguired to ask ‘C form. Information about action taken when reguest for ‘C form as mentioned in 1 (a) to (e) was received at BHEL.

(7) lnformation if BHEL had incurred any liguidated damages/financial loss because of delay. If so.

(8) lnformation if BHEL is aware that vendor is an MSME unit.

(9) Official Email Id and official Phone No. of CPIO and 1st Appellate Authority may please be provided.”

2. The CPIO replied to the appellant on 10.04.2021 stating as follows:—

The information sought by you is third party and personnel information which has no larger public interest involved in it. Hence the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (j) of tile RTI Act.

Further, the information is in the form of queries and questions. In this regard we would like to inform you that the information in the form of queries, questions, comments, reasons are outside the purview of the Act and you have not sought any specific information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, the information sought is outside the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.

3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.04.2021. FAA's order dated 14.06.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.

CIC/BHELD/A/2021/143615

Information sought:

4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.06.2021 seeking the following information:

(1) “Information if following letters were received in BHEL office. If so date of receipt may be provided. Copies of letters were sent to you vide letter No. J5/875/2021. dtd. 02.03.2021. Ref : J5/941/2021 Date : 21.06.2021

(a) J5/0151/2018-19 DT.25/05/2018 (b)J5/0195/2018-19 DT 08/06/2018 Reminder-1 (c)J5/0027/2019 dt. 11/04/2019 Reminder-II (d)J5/646 dt. 29/07/2020 Reminder-Ill (e)J5/704 dt. 15/09/2020 Reminder-IV

(f) J5/824/2021 dt.19/01/2021

(2) lnformation if Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd., invoice No. 003 dt. 02/11/2015 and 001 dt. 01/04/2016 mentions CST@2% against issue of ‘C’ form.

(3) lnformation if RTI application No. J5/693/2020 dt. 14/09/2020 was received.

(4) The date when guarantee period for DG set supplied against above order was over/had expired.

(5) lnformation when the withheld amount towards guarantee period was released.

(6) lnformation under which clause of order vendor is required to ask ‘C form. Information about action taken when request for ‘C form as mentioned in 1 (a) to (e) was received at BHEL.

(7) lnformation if BHEL had incurred any liquidated damages/financial loss because of delay. If so.

(8) lnformation if BHEL is aware that vendor is an MSME unit. (9) Official Email Id and official Phone No. of CPIO and 1st Appellate Authority may please be provided.

(10) Information if as per your record the applicant is Mg. Director of M/s. Jeevan Diesels & Electricals Ltd.,

(11) Information if BHEL had replied 1(a) to 1(f). If not, reasons as per record may be provided including copy of note sheet.

(12) As per Letter No. HY/AA/RTI-04/2021-22 dt. 14.06.2021 through my appeal 1st AA came to know that I am Mg. Director of JDEL. Her coming to know about this fact at appeal stage is not permissible. I want information if this is not permissible as per RTI Act or it is her personal perception.”

5. The CPIO replied to the appellant on 28.07.2021 stating as follows:—

“The information sought by you vide your said RTI is in the form of gueries, guestions, and grievances etc., which does not fall under definition of information as defined under section 2(f) of the Act. Further, compiling of such information will disproportionately divert the public resources, therefore, the information sought by you is exempted under section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

6. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.08.2021. FAA's order dated 25.09.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.

CIC/BHELD/A/2021/144997

Information sought:

7. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.07.2021 seeking the following information:

1. Under RTI Act 2005, I would like to have the following information. While replying Please mention my letter reference No. and date.

2. Action taken report, on my letter No. 15/931/2021 dt. 01/06/2021 for which I have not received any reply. I am enclosing a copy of my said letter for your ready reference and necessary action.

3. Xerox copy of internal note sheet generated on and after receipt of this letter and till the date of sending the reply.

It is reguested that while replying please mention my letter No., date, contact details and also official Email Id. of your and of 1st Appellate Authority.

8. The CPIO replied to the appellant on 28.07.2021 stating as follows:—

“………..It is to inform you that under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. Similarly, queries, grievances, justifications, reasons for non-compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the public authority are outside the purview of the Act. Therefore, the query sought you does not qualify as information under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.”

9. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.08.2021. FAA's order dated 25.09.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

10. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeal(s).

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing

11. The following were present:—

Appellant : Present through audio-conference.

Respondent : B. Sudhakar Reddy, Deputy Manager(Law) & CPIO present through audio-conference.

12. The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the averred replies of the CPIO on two counts. Firstly, that the denial of information by the CPIO under Section 8(l)(j) of RTI Act was incorrect in view of the fact that he has sought information of the letters and/or related information of M/s. Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. in the capacity of its MD. This fact was clarified by him in his First Appeal which was totally ignored by the FAA while passing the impugned order. Secondly, the information sought by him is very well covered under the definition of Section 2(f) of RTI Act.

13. The CPIO reiterated the contents of his latest written submissions pertaining to each case, relevant portion of which is reproduced below in verbatim -

In case no. CIC/BHELD/A/2021/125628:

“…It is submitted that the appellant has filed a RTI application dated 02.03.2021, has information w.r.t. to M/s. Jeevan Diesels. Vide reply dated 10.04.2021 the appellant has been informed that “the information sought by you is third party and personnel information which has no larger public interest involved in it. Hence the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. Further, the information is in the form of queries and questions. In this regard we would like to inform you that the information in the form of queries, questions, comments, reasons are outside the purview of the Act and you have not sought any specific information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, the information sought is outside the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.”

It is submitted that the Appellant has filed the Second Appeal before this Hon'ble Information Commission. The grounds raised by the appellant are not maintainable and are against the law. In this regard following is submitted:

The Appellant has sought the information pertaining to letters addressed by M/s. Jeevan Diesels, C - Forms, Guarantee Period, Liquidated Damages, Receipt of RTI Application dated 14.09.2020, Vendor is a MSME Unit, the details of Appellate Authority etc.

The information sought by the Appellant under the RTI pertains to M/s. Jeevan Diesels Et Electricals Ltd. with respect to a commercial contract between BHEL and M/s. Jeevan Diesels. Since the information sought is third party information and which has no larger public interest involved in it. Further, the appellant has sought interrogative questions in the application which is outside the purview of the Act. Accordingly as per the provisions of the RTI Act reply has been given invoking section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the contact details of the Appellate Authority was provided.

It submitted that at the appeal stage that the appellant has disclosed his relationship with M/s. Jeevan Diesels a Electricals Ltd. and bringing the new facts at the appeal stage is not permitted under law. Further, it is submitted that Appellant and his Associates has filed around five RTI Applications seeking same repetitive questions. The Appellant at point no. 3 of the RTI Application has sought information if the RTI Application no. J5/693/2020 dated 14.09.2020 was received. In this regard it is submitted that for the said RTI Application dated 14.09.2020, CPIO has given its reply vide reply dated 17.10.2020. Against the said reply they have filed an RTI Appeal and the same has been disposed of by the First Appellate Authority. From the above, it is evident that the RTI

Application dated 14.09.2020 was received and a reply was also given. Knowing all the facts the Appellant has sought the information about receipt of the letter in RTI

Application dated 02.03.2021 and the appellant has sought the same questions in another RTI Application dated 21.06.2021. Thus, inspite of having information readily available with Appellant and seeking same information from the Public Authority is sheer misuse of RTI Act.

Further, it is submitted that on perusal of all the RTI Applications filed by the appellant and its associates shows that the Appellant Company has certain grievances w.r.t. the purchase orders entered with BHEL and he is seeking redressal of such grievances through the RTI Act. For any such any grievances an appropriate forum is mentioned in the contract. In the matter of H.K. Bansai v. CP10 a GM (OP), MTNL in Decision No. C1C/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013, the Commission had observed as follows:

“The RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes and there are other appropriate forum(s) for resolving such matters.”

In case no. CIC/BHELD/A/2021/143615:

“…The Appellant has sought the information pertaining to letters addressed by M/s. Jeevan Diesels, C - Forms, Guarantee Period, Liquidated Damages, Receipt of RTI Application dated UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 14.09.2020, whether Vendor is a MSME Unit, the details of Appellate Authority, information if as per your record the applicant is Mg. Director of M/s. Jeevan Diesels Et Electricals ltd, information if BHEL had replied 1(a) to 1(f), If not, reason as per record may be provided including copy of note sheet, etc.

The information sought by the appellant are in the form of queries, questions and grievances such as “BHEL is aware that vendor is an MSME Unit, when the withheld amount towards guarantee period was released, Information on C-form, information if BHEL has replied to 1(a) to 1(f) if not reasons as per record, etc.”

Thus, the information sought by appellant is in the form of queries, questions and grievances and doesn't fall under definition has defined under the Act. Further, compiling of such information will disproportionately divert the public resources.

The Appellant at point no. 3 of the RTI Application has sought information if the RTI Application no. J51693/2020 dated 14.09.2020 was received. It is submitted for the said RTI Application dated 14.09.2020, CPIO has given its reply vide reply dated 17.10.2020 and against the said reply the Appellant have filed an RTI Appeal and the same has been disposed of by the First Appellate Authority as well.

From the above, it is evident that the RTI Application dated 14.09.2020 was received and a reply was given. Knowing all the facts the Appellant has sought the information about receipt of the letter in RTI Application dated 21.06.2021 and the appellant has sought the similar questions in another RTI Application dated 02.03.2021. Still, inspite of having information readily available with Appellant and seeking information from the Public Authority is sheer misuse of RTI Act.

In case no. CIC/BHELD/A/2021/144997:

“…The Appellant in the RTI Application dated 06.07.2021 has sought action taken report on his letter dated 01.06.2021 by enclosing copy of Letter and seeking to take necessary action. Further in the said RTI Application, the appellant is seeking internal note sheet generated on and after receiving RTI application till date of receipt of the reply. From the above, it is clearly evident that the Appellant has seeking to take necessary action and the action report on the letter dated 01.06.2021 through RTI. Thus, the information sought by the appellant is in the form of queries, grievances, justifications, reasons for non-compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the public authority are outside the purview of the Act. Therefore, the query sought does not qualify as information under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

The RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes and there are other appropriate forum(s) for resolving such matters.” For the reasons stated above, it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Information commission may dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant and pass such other orders as may be just, proper and reasonable in the in terest of Justice…

14. Lastly, the CPIO agreed to abide by the direction of the Commission.

DECISION

15. The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the replies provided by the CPIO in response to each RTI Application(s) (mentioned herein above) are totally evasive and fails to comply with the provisions of RTI Act. In addition to it, the Commission takes grave exception to the conduct of FAA in not considering the additional facts clarified by the Appellant in his First Appeal regarding his locus standi with respect to the information sought for, while adjudicating of the averred First Appeal.

In case no. CIC/BHELD/A/2021/144997 - Further, the plea taken by the CPIO that the queries raised by the Appellant do not conform to Section 2(f) is totally unacceptable as the nature of information sought for therein includes inter alai, the action taken report which very well falls under the ambit of information in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act.

16. In view of the foregoing, the Commission records adverse remarks for the apparent evasive approach of the FAA in the instant matter and for having failed to properly execute the statutory duty cast upon the FAA by virtue of the RTI Act. A copy of this order is marked to the FAA to take note of the displeasure of the Commission as recorded herein. Also, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence while responding to RTI Applications in future by proper application of mind.

17. Now, considering the prayer of the Appellant and in the spirit of RTI Act, the CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of each RTI Application (mentioned above) and provide a point wise revised categorical reply along with relevant information as per its availability against each application in terms of RTI Act . While providing the information, the CPIO is at liberty to redact the names/identifying particulars of officers/third parties disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(l)(j) of RTI Act. The severance of records may be carried out by the CPIO in consonance with Section 10 of RTI Act.

18. The above said replies/information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

19. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

K.S. Jain v. Central Public Information Officer, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. .

Commission Opinion — Structured Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Respondent's (CPIO/FAA) Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Direct Consequences and Implementation

Broader Implications

K.S. Jain v. Central Public Information Officer, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. .

Comments