O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "1. The drafting error committed by the Ombudsman PFRDA. Rule/Regulation for choosing the word "few" when "all" was more appropriate in the present context to describe the transactions done vide Kotak Bank. All the transactions done under the subscriber id *******57593 using Kotak Bank were with delays and all transactions done vide other banks, units were credited in a time-bound Page 1 of 5
1 / 6
1
manner and 4 out of 4 transactions done vide. Kotak Bank were all with substantial delays.
2) The merit of using the word few by the Ombudsman and Designated Member concurs with his decision. Share the supporting facts that justify the use of the word "few" else share the rule/regulation which allows the Ombudsman to make statements as per his whim and fancies that is bereft of any supporting facts.
(ii) 1) Share the detailed investigation report, how had Ombudsman and the Designated Member correlated the facts which were present before them, passed the Order on 10th Nov 2021 and 7th June 2022 respectively etc./ other related information."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 15.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
(i) "Information is being sought on the use of a particular word in the Award issued by the Ombudsman. This is not covered under the definition of 'information' as per Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) The Ombudsman's Office is not an investigating agency and arrives at decisions based on the rules and regulations contained in the PFRDA (Redressal of Subscriber Grievance) Regulations, 2015. The power to call for information and documents in laid down in Section 23 of the above mentioned regulations etc."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.12.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 30.12.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 11.01.2023.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Purnima Sharma, General Manager, attended the hearing in-person.
Page 2 of 5
2 / 6
2
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was not satisfied with the response given by the CPIO and claimed that the CPIO did not look into the deficiencies in the Ombudsman's order. His written submissions were taken on record and are reproduced as under:
"How was the Compensation amount reasonable, can't be challenged w/o its calculation. This is the vital information which is not revealed when asked from the Designated Member and same is done by the PIO and the FAA giving excuses for not sharing it . Power is given to the Ombudsman to use it with responsibility and diligently safeguarding the interest of the NPS Subscribers. Power is not given to him where he is treating his Office as his personal fiefdom, choosing arbitrary procedures in giving Order which were against the principle of natural justice. Just to understand how unfair the Compensation amount was can be gauged from the fact it took around 18-19 months of time and effort to get this compensation amount when it was rejected by the NSDL (Respondent 2). During that period the Guilty party (Respondent 1) earned around ₹ 4000 for that amount they held because of the loss incurred to the subscriber due to delay in unit transfer. For attending the hearing the complainant had to shell out around ₹ 5000 /-. The reasonable amount given after the approval by the Ombudsman is ₹ 2530 /-. The calculation is not shared to hide the unfair practices followed by the Ombudsman which are against the principle of natural justice. This compensation given is from the profit which the guilty parties earned from the amount they delay in crediting the units and keeping it for around 18 months. After giving this compensation they earned around ₹ 1500 /-. Now when asked in the RTI same is denied, saying that Ombudsman may choose arbitrary compensation amount at its discretion and can use any methodology. Meaning this amount may or may not be a fair compensation amount and its calculation won't be shared with the Complainant which is against the principle of Justice."
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant has raised a grievance regarding dissatisfaction with the order passed by Ombudsman in his Page 3 of 5
3 / 6
3
matter. Although, he was time and again replied that his matter had been resolved, he tried to resort to the provisions of the RTI Act, seeking redressal of his grievance. Further, the CPIO stated that they had replied to the appellant within stipulated time limit, within 30 days, vide letter dated 15.11.2022.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate reply was given by the CPIO on 15.11.2022. The appellant was heard at length and after granting adequate time to the Appellant to present his case, it is observed that the information sought for in the RTI Application does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing………A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied)
Further for better understating of the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, reference may be had of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7….Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. Page 4 of 5
4 / 6
4
The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him…." (Emphasis Supplied)
In view of the above, the Commission finds no substance in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/- (Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु) िदनांक/Date: 30.04.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ($रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Nodal CPIO (RTI Branch)
Chhatrapati Shivaji Bhavan, B-14/A, Qutab Institutional Area Block- B Road, Katwaria Sarai
New Delhi-110016
2. Naresh Luthra Page 5 of 5
5 / 6
5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 61 / 16
6