The Hans India: New Delhi: Tuesday, January 02, 2018.
Vishwas
Bhamburkar apprehended embezzlement of funds of HUDCO, New Delhi, and sought
information on spending on gifts for the years from 2013 to 2016, renovation of
official residence of its Chairman and Managing Director in ASIAD village,
electricity bills of official residence, and about employment of two persons at
CMD residence etc.
The CPIO, Dr
D K Gupta, wrote a letter on 5.8.2016 demanding the proof of identity and proof
of address by producing Aadhaar Card, Voter’s ID Card or Passport as proof of
citizenship. He did not say anything about giving information sought. No
information was given within 30 days. The applicant who filed this complaint
also filed first appeal, asking for information without insisting on the
proofs.
First
Appellate Authority Akhilesh Kumar confirmed the demand for proof of identity,
verification of address and establishing citizenship of the appellant. On
19.04.2017, the Commission directed the CPIO to facilitate inspection of all the
exhibits and files related to: (i) names and beneficiaries for whom amounts
were spent from the coffers of HUDCO for gifts for years 2013 to 2016; (ii)
renovation of official residence of its Chairman and Managing Director in ASIAD
village (iii) Mr. Rajkumar and Mr. Harish employed in capacity of Chairman and
Managing Director respectively and remunerations paid to each of them; (iv)
Appointment of Ms. Shweta Kulshreshtha as Management Trainee in Uttarakhand;
(v) Vigilance clearance given to Mr. Ravi Kant.
The
respondent authority was directed to facilitate inspection on 20.04.2017 at
1130 hours and the CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed
upon him for not furnishing the information sough within prescribed time
limits. Dr DK Gupta, CPIO (in-charge), HUDCO, on 18.05.2017 submitted a
detailed written explanation, as follows: “At the outset, I would like to
submit that a few RTI applications were received by the then CPIO, HUDCO,
during the same period in the nature of motivated allegations, and it was found
that in most of the cases, no such RTI applicant either residing at the
addresses mentioned therein, or has already left the place given in the RTI
applications.
Therefore, a
need has arisen for the then CPIO to ensure the genuineness of the applicants
by seeking the identity proof of the applicants. The then CPI, HUDCO, in order
to discharge his obligations with utmost care and caution, requested the
Applicant, Shri Vishwas Bhamburkar, to confirm his identity, as a Citizen of India,
by furnishing any proof. However, he understood differently and reacted harshly
unbecoming of a responsible citizen of India. Appellant has asked twenty-four
(24) questions in more than 500 words on different subjects about
administrative aspects of a 47-year-old HUDCO.
The Right to
Information Act, 2005 is a Special Act, empowering the citizens of India to
obtain information from any Public Authority, therefore, right from the
submission of application to the CPIO level up to any proceedings before the
Central Information Commission, it is the duty of the Public Information
Officers to ensure that such right is being exercised only by a citizen of
India. As per the present mandate, a CPIO is empowered to deny furnishing of
any formation, if not applied for by a citizen of India.
However, the
Applicant/Appellant all along since August 2016 has been prejudicial and also
adamant at not furnishing his identity proof, disregarding the specific
requests made by the then CPIO as well as by First Appellate Authority, using
manifestly-derogatory and palpably-objectionable language. The CPIO has
furnished information in 29 pages, which is more than what has been asked for,
by the Applicant/Appellant and was sent by Speed Post on 28.4.2017.”
The
Commission mentioned in an order dated 05.07.2017: “the representative of
appellant Shri Mukul Jain alleged that around five crore rupees worth
malpractice is going on in HUDCO in the form of giving and receiving of gifts
involving senior people in the Ministry, and it was not known who asked those
gifts and who received.
He said that
gifts like iPhone, Mont Blanc Pens, and iPads were given to the senior
authorities of their Ministry by Mr Ravi Kant, IAS, Managing Director of HUDCO.
He also said that the CPIO had no authority to demand the identity proof and to
ascertain whether information available will be useful to him either personally
or socially or nationally. Does he not know that they are spending public money
on gifts, residence of the MD and his office, and it should be disclosing such
information to the public in general as per RTI Act?”
In this case,
there are two CPIOs during the first thirty days from date of RTI application,
i.e., 1.8.2016. Dr DK Gupta should have given that information, which was not
hit by any exception, within mandatory 30 days as he was holding office of CPIO
till 24th August, 2016. He spent 24 days without giving information or
following up after demanding proof of identity etc. He raised suspicion about
the citizenship of the applicant without explaining why he was suspecting.
There is
nothing to justify his suspicion even in his explanation to show cause notice.
His contention that some others have filed anonymous or pseudonymous complaints
is not valid. He mentioned about complaints being closed because of these
reasons on the advice of CVC. Taking action against a complaint without bearing
an identifiable name is different from objecting to the RTI application, which
is properly filed with name, address and identity. In his response, CPIO Dr DK
Gupta says, because some others filed repetitive RTIs, he wanted to verify bona
fides of this applicant.
This
contention is not legal and hence not acceptable. He also failed to justify the
denial of information, as he could not cite any clause of exception under
Section 8 or 9. From his submissions, it is clear that the information sought
did not attract any exception prescribed under RTI Act. In his explanation on
the show cause notice he admitted that he insisted on proof of identity, proof
of address and also proof of citizenship.
He claimed to
have initiated to collect information but, he did not do anything before he
left the office or made arrangements to dispatch it before expiry of 30 days
time by successor. In addition, his intention to deny was also established by
his explanation to show cause notice. Dr DK Gupta admitted that he insisted on
the applicant to submit proof of identity, proof of address, proof of
citizenship and specifically demanded Aadhaar Card or Passport or Voter Id Card
and refused to consider his RTI request otherwise. He reiterated he had a duty
not to give information to non-citizens.
As per law,
he need not provide any confirmation for his address, name or citizenship. Dr.
D K Gupta said he has a duty to give information only to citizen and has no
duty to give information to non-citizen. Section 7 explains the duties of CPIO
under RTI Act. The CPIO can deny
information only under Section 8 and 9. He cannot invent new grounds for denial
like lack of Aadhaar Card, Voter Id Card, Passport etc. This Section was
violated by Dr D K Gupta as he did not give any information in 30 days and
beyond also.
Dr DK Gupta
failed to prove that Vishwas Bhamburkar was not a citizen as ground for denial,
though it was not available to him. Nowhere the RTI Act prohibited ‘person’
from securing the information, or authorized the PIO to demand the proof of
citizenship. The RTI Act, 2005 uses expression of Citizen in Section 3, but
these two CPIOs do not see that expression ‘person’ is used in Section 6
(Request for obtaining information)– “A person who desires to obtain any
information under this Act, shall...”, Section 7 (Disposal of Request, duty of
CPIO) proviso under subsections (1), (6), (8), Section 18 (complaint by any
person), Section 19( appeal by any person).
A ‘person’
cannot be denied information on the pretext that he did not produce proof of
citizenship. In addition, the CPIOs and FAA were insisting on Aadhar Card to
give information. Hence the Commission held that CPIO was liable to pay penalty
of Rs 25,000.
.JPG)
.JPG)
