STATUS OF RTI QUERIES (RECEIVED / REPLIED DURING OCTOBER- 2014) S.
STATUS OF RTI QUERIES (RECEIVED / REPLIED DURING OCTOBER- 2014) S. NO. FROM WHOM SUBJECT 1. MS. TARRANUM SARDAR, PRESIDENT CHILD CARE &WELFARE FOUNDATION, ARYA NAGAR , NEHRU ROAD, BARAUT, DIST BAGHPAT-250611. MS. TARRANUM SARDAR PRESIDENT CHILD CARE &WELFARE FOUNDATION, ARYA NAGAR, NEHRU ROAD BARAUT, BAGHPAT UP-250611. SH. SHRIKANT LACHAKE, NCP OFFICE, 10, BISHAMBER DAS MARG, GOLE DAK KHANA, NEW DELHI-110001. (Ministry Of Power) SH. CHANDAN KUMAR, KULTI COLLEGE ROAD, POST PLACE- KULTI, DIST. BURDWAN, (WEST BENGAL). PIN-713343. (Ministry Of Power) MR. CHANDAN KUMAR, KULTI COLLEGE ROAD, POST PLACE- KULTI, DIST. BURDWAN, (WEST BENGAL). PIN-713343. PROF. KASHINATH GURU ESAKKI, STREET SAMAJ, NO. 56 RAMESWARAM ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI-600014. SH. SUNIL BHASIN, 3A- DDA FLATS, FRIENDS COLONY (EAST), NEW DELHI-110065. Various information relating to CMD/ Directors/ GMProject 05.09.2014 02.10.2014 Various Information relating to D(F),PFC 05.09.2014 02.10.2014 Information regarding various committees of MOP. 17.09.2014 15.10.2014 Information on funds allotted to state power & utility(s) on last year. 29.09.2014 20.10.2014 Information regarding underground cabling executed under R-ARDRP scheme. 07.10.2014 20.10.2014 Information regarding representation of women in public sector. 08.10.2014 20.10.2014 Information relating to compliance of CIC order (CIC-61) 08.10.2014 05.11.2014 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. DATE OF RECEIPT 1 DATE OF REPLY 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. SH ASHISH KUMAR SINGH, VILLAGE- SIKATHA, POST- SIKATHA, DISTRICT- SANT KABIR NAGAR, U.P.- 272172. (ONLINE RTI) UDAY SHANKAR PATHAK, 40, DAINIK JANYUG APT, VASUNDHARA ENCLAVE, DELHI-110096. (ONLINE RTI) Information regarding execution of R-ARDRP Scheme in the DistrictAjamgarh, UP. 12.10.2014 28.10.2014 Problem on Bihar electricity online portal to view/ pay bills. 12.10.2014 SH. SANDEEP GAUTAM, FLAT NO. 8038, E-BLOCK, GAUR GREEN CITY, VAIBHAV KHAND, INDIRAPURAM, GHAZIABAD, UP201010. (Ministry Of Power) SH. SHWETANK KUMAR H.NO. 99, DHAKKA VILLAGE, KINGSWAY CAMP, NEW DELHI, PIN110009 (ONLINE RTI) Information regarding recruitment policies of PSUs under Ministry Of Power. 13.10.2014 Online RTI Application rejected on 13.10.2014 on RTIMIS portal of Govt. of India since the matter belonged to State Govt. 03.11.2014 Information regarding recruitment result for exam conducted by BIHAR STATE POWER HOLDING CO Ltd. 16.10.2014 SH H.K. DAS PRESIDENT, PFC EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION, URJANIDHI, 1, BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI-110001. SH. UMAMAHESWARA RAO TALASILA, D.NO. 27-1-235/1, SRINAGAR, N.H, 16 ROAD, 61ST WARD OF GVMC, GAJUWAKA (PO), VISHAKHAPATNAM, PIN-530026(AP) INDIA. MS. RENUKA SAROHA, 998, SECTOR-17, FARIDABAD-121002. (Ministry Of Power) Information/ documents relating to Baseline Compensation. 20.10.2014 Expenditure incurred under the Head “adv,” and/or “Business Promotion Expenses” of PFCL during the last 5 years from F.Y. 2009-2014 27.10.2014 11.11.2014 Information regarding copies of ToRs, environmental clearance, forest and wild life clearance, other clearances to Sasan UMPP 30.10.2014 Reply under preparation 2 Online RTI Application rejected on 20.10.2014 on RTIMIS portal of Govt. of India since the matter belonged to State Govt. Reply under preparation IciX ut)I* cit) VI-I POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. (3Tffu \i-Ncov< .31-isr)4-0 (A Govt. of India Undertaking) 0114.\rii.31. 9001:2008 ATEIPM) (ISO 9001:2008 Certified) Dispatch No. 02- 1/9)4 Dated: 05th November, 2014 No. 1:05:108:05(654) Shri Sunil Bhasin, 3A, DDA Flats, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi - 110065. Subject: Information under Right to Information Act, 2005. Sir, This is with reference to your application dated 30.09.2014 (received on 08.10.2014) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information regarding the compliance of CIC Order No. CIC/LS/C/2013/00061 dated 15.05.2014 passed by the then Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner Ms. Sushma Singh in connection with the hearing held in Central Information Commission on 07.05.2014. 410 In this regard, we wish to inform you that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its Order dated 20.08.2014 (Annexure I) stayed the abovesaid CIC Order dated 15.05.2014 and fixed the next date of hearing as 19.11.2014 for further proceedings. A copy of the petition filed by PFC in Delhi High Court against the above said CIC Order is annexed herewith as Annexure-II. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Power Finance Co oration Limited • r-- 0'4 nohar Balwani) Company Secretary & PIO tarfa cbitirevi : ""thvini, 1, 6ININGII Aff, Regd. Office : - 110001 : 23456000 ItWE 011-23412545 "Urjanidhi", 1, Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Phones : 23456000 Fax : 011-23412545 -44-t114Z/ Website : www.pfcindia.com • CIN : L65910DL1986GO1024862 14/1 • " Utka 4aIC illImillasoNMININIIIIIMM111.1111111111.11111."1"11 -4 $-42 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 5252/2014 & CM No.10428/2014 POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. Petitioner Through: Mr Jagdep Kishore, Advocate. versus SUSHMA SINGH & ORS. Respondents Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER 20.08.2014 Issue notice, returnable on 19.11.2014. Dasti as well. In the meantime, the impugned order is stayed. Order dasti. VIBHU BAKHRU, AUGUST 20, 2014 MK A IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CIVIL) No. 5252— OF 2014 Power Finance Corporation Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Smt. Sushma Singh and others ... Respondents INDEX S.No. Particulars Pages 1. Notice of Motion A 2. Urgent Application B 3. Memo of Parties 4. List of Dates & Events 5. Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the 1-15 Constitution of India alongwith supporting affidavit 6. AnnexureP/1: True copy of the order dated 15.05.2014 7. AnnexurePa C-D E-H 16-18 19-22 True copy of order dated 27.08.2013 8. AnnexureP/3: True copy of application seeking disclosure of information by seeking certified copies of all file notings and records related to his dismissal including all the correspondence in that regard 23 9. AnnexureP/4: True copy of the covering letter dated 20.09.2013 24 10. AnnexureP/5: True copy of the letter dated 07.01.2014 25 11. AnnexureP/6: True copy of the letter dated 30.10.2013 26:27 12. AnnexureP/7: True copy of the application dated 20.11.2013 28 13. AnnexureP/8: True copy of the notice dated 24.02.2014 29 14. AnnexureP/9: True copy of the Response dated 04.03.2014 30 Application under Section 151 for stay alongwith supporting affidavit 31-35 Vakalatnama. 36 (JAGDEEP KISHORE) Advocate for Petitioner, 331, Lawyers Chambers, Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi Dated: 06.08.2014 14. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CIVIL) No. 5162-- OF 2014 Power Firiance Corporation Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Smt. Sushma Singh and others ... Respondents NOTICE OF MOTION TAKE NOTICE that the accompanying petition/application will be. I15ted before Court on • at 10.30 0" Clock In the forenoon, or soon thereafter as may be convenient to the Court. New Delhi Dated: To, 1. Name Advocate for the 2. Name Advocate for the JAGDEEP KISHORE Advocate for the Petitioner 331 Lawyers Chamber Delhi High Court New Delhi IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CIVIL) No. In the matter of: 52-5 2- OF 2014 Right to Information'Act, 2005 ... Petitioner Power Finance Corporation Ltd. Versus Smt. Sushma Singh and others ... Respondents URGENT APPLICATION To The Registrar, Delhi High Court, New Delhi. Sir, Kindly treat the accompanying petition as an urgent one as per High Court rules & regulations. Thegrounds of urgency are: The petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India along with the stay application may kindly be listed urgently since "Urgent orders for setting aside order dated 15.05.?014 passed by the Learned CIC has been prayed for." (JAGDEEP KISHORE) Advocate for Petitioner, 331, Lawyers Chambers, Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi Dated: 06.08.2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.R(CIVIL) No. In the matter of: 5252 OF 2014 Right to Information Act, 2005 Power Finance Corporation Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Smt. Sushma Singh and others ... Respondents WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 READ WITH ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ORDER DATED 15.05.2014 SIGNED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 ANb AUTHENTICATED UNDER SIGNATURES OF RESPONDENT NO.2 MEMO OF PARTIES Pbwer Finance Corporation Ltd. A Government of India Undertaking having its Registered Office at: Urjanidhi, 1,Barakambha Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi Through Shri Manohar Baiwani Company Secretary and Public Information Officer Versus 1. Smt. Sushma Singh Chief Information Commissioner (Recd.), Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, B Wing, August Krantl Bhawan, Bhikaiji Carna Place, New Delhi Petitioner • D . 3. Shri D.C.Singh, Deputy Registrar Central Information Commission, 2nd Flobr, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaiji Cama Place, New Delhi Shri 5 nil Bhasin, 3 A, DipA Flats, Friend Colony, New Delhi-110065 - Respondents A • (JAGDEEP KISHORE) Advocate for Petitioner, 331, Lawyers Chambers/ Deihl High Court, New Delhi Dated: 06.08.2014 New Delhi-110003 LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS July 2014 Shri Sunil Bhasin employed with the Petitioner as Deputy General Manager (Finance) was dismissed from service after following due process of law. 11.07.2013 In line with information sought under RTI Act from time to time Shri Sunil Bhasin (Respondent No.3 ) sought disclosure of all Pile notings and records relating to hi, dismissal including all correspondence in that regard. August 2013 On the disclosure of said information being declined by the PIO of the Petitioner, Respondent No.3 preferred appeal before dIC directly ignoring the provisions of the first appeal being maintainable before the First Appellate Authority. 27.08.2013 Shri M.L.Sharma Information Commissioner (since retired) passed an order directing the Petitioner to disclose the said informati9,n. This order was passed without issuing any a notice or granting any hearing to the Petitioner as well as ignoring the judicial pronouncements that if the information sought is non -specific, the PIO was not expected to collect and collate the information before providing it 20.09.2013 Under cover of letter dated 20.09.2013 desired information/documents were furnished by the Petitioner to Respondent No.3 30.10.2013 1 Respondent No.3 pointed out some specific information as not having beenprovided, vide letter dated 30.10.2013 I 07.01.2014 The information/documents pointed out by the Respondent No.3 wereprovided by the Petitioner under cover of its letter dated 07.01.2014. It may be pointed out that for the first time Respondent No.3 enlarged the disclosure of information to include all the file notings and records of vigilance unit held with the Petitioner and Ministry of Power. A 20.11.2013 Respondent No.3 filed an application dated rr 20.11.2013 before the CIC complaining non—compliance of the order dated 27.08.2013 by the Petitioner without pointing out specifically whith information was not disclosed. 24.02.2014 Office of the CIC wrote a letter to the Petitioner seeking its comments on the said application of Respondent No.3 04.03.2014 Petitioner sent its response to letter •dated 24.02.2014 of the office of CIC reporting that all information had. been provided 07.05.1-014 After notice of hearing was received from the office of CIC (Respondent No.1) herein, matter was heard when Respondent No.1 was appraised of the order dated 27.08.2013 having been passed by the Learned Information Commissioner without issuing any notice to the Petitioner or granting any hearing to the Petitioner and the same being in violation of other judicial pronouncements and yet the same was - complied with by the Petitioner. After hearing both sides Respondent No.1 had reacted that in these circumstances there was nothing more to be done and she was dismissing the application complaining non —compliance. 27.05.2014 On 27.05.2014 the Petitioner received an order dated 15.05.2014 signed • by Respondent No.1 who retired on 21.05.2014 and found that the order was contrary to what transpired in the hearing and had been authenticated by Respondent No.2 Hence the writ petition. New Delhi Dated 06.08.2014 Jagdeep Kishore Advocate 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CIVIL) No. In the matter of: OF 2014 Right to Information Act, 2005 Power Finance Corporation Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Smt. Sushma Singh and others ... Respondents WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 READ WITH ARTICLE .227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ORDER DATED 15.05.2014 SIGNED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND AUTHENTICATED UNDER SIGNATURES OF RESPONDENT NO.2 To, Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Her Other CompaDion Judges of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi HUMBLE PETITION OF THE ABOVE NAMED PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS AS UNDER:- 1. That Power Finance Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner, is a Government of India Undertaking and falls within the purview of the Right to A, 2_ Information Act, 2005. It is filing the present petition through its Company Secretary and Public Information Officer Shri Manohar Balwani. 2. That, as per the decision of this Hon'ble Court, a judicial/ quasi judicial officer/ authority like Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) or Information Commissioner (IC) is not to be impleaded as a Respondent. However, the peculiar facts and clreurrictearicee of the: pritureht case halve compasilati this Petitioner to seek records/ answers from Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hence, Smt. Sushma .Singh, signatory of the impugned order dated 15.05.2014 and then functioning as CIC has been impleaded and Shri D.C. • Singh, Deputy Secretary cum Deputy Registrar, who has got the said order prepared and authenticated the copy has been impleaded. True copy of the order dated 15.05.2014 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure Pit 3. That Shri Sunil Bhasin (Respondent No.3) is the person who had sought disclosure of the Information from the Petitioner by way of 'authenticated copies of all the file notings and records relating to his dismissal including all correspondence in that regard.' On the RTI application being rejected by the PIO, Respondent No.3 chose to file a second appeal directly before CIC whereon, without issuing any notice to the Petitioner or granting any hearing to it, an order dated 27.08.2013 was passed directing the Petitioner to provide certified photocopies of the information/documents requested for in four weeks time. The appeal was given File No.CIC/L5/C/ 2013/00000i. True copy of the order , dated 27.08.2013 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P/2. Hence Shri Sunil Bhasin has been impleaded as Respondent No.3. 4. The present petition raises important questions of law as to whether on an application complaining non1 i cdmpliance of a particular order passed by the Hon'ble Commission, on the Petitioner showing compliance thereof, the Learned CIC or Information Commissioner can issue directions beyond the scope of the original order on the application complaining non-compliance of the said order and even direct disclosure of information not in its possession or in the possession of another Public Authority. As such the Petitioner invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as well. 5. That in the present case Respondent No.3, a former employee of the Petitioner, who was dismissed from service in July 2011 and who has not challenged the said dismissal for over three years, sought disclosure of information by seeking authenticated copies of all file noting& and records relating to his diernislami inciwding mii the correspondence in that regard. True copy of the application seeking the said disclosure is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P/3. 6. That the disclosure of the said information was denied by the PIO which fed to Respondent No.3 filing an api4a1 directly before Central Information Commission, bypassing the provision of first appeal before the First Appellate Authority, as provided in the RTI Act, 2005 . 7. That the then Information Commissioner, Shri M.L.Sharma, chose to entertain the said appeal without issuing notice or granting any hearing to the Petitioner and passed order dated 27.08.2013. He even observed in the order that hearing was not necessary. True copy of the order dated 27.08.2013 has been annexed herewith as Annexure Pj2. 8. That the aforesaid order dated 27.08.2013 suffered from legal irregularities and deficiencies as enumerated hqreunder:- (i) The information sought was non specific, general, vague and in the nature of roving and fighing inquiry. (ii) Could have contained thought process of various functionaries and third parties who decided to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on Respondent No.3. (iii) The PIO was not expected to collect and collate the information before providing it. (iv) No notice of appeal was issued or hearing was granted In the appeal to the Petitioner. (v) The provision of filing of first appeal was given a go by the Respondent No.3. However, the Petitioner, in all fairness chose to comply with the directions given in order dated 27.08.2013 which was in the following terms:- "I, therefore, set aside the order of CPIO and direct him to provide certified photocopies of the information/ documents requested for by theappellant." 9. That the Petitioner provided the said information under cover of its letter dated 20.09.2013 and on Respondent No.3 pointing out vide his letter dated 30.10.2013 that some information had not been provided; the Petitioner under cover of its Letter dated 07.01.2014 provided the same. True copies of the covering letter dated 20.09.2013 and letter dated 07.01.2014 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P/4 and Annexure P/5 respectively. 10. That in the letter dated 30.10.2013 written by Respondent No.3, the said Respondent enlarged the disclosure of the information to include records and file notings of the vigilance unit held with the Petitioner and Ministry of Power, which is a separate Public Authority. Whatever further information was available with the Petitioner was provided to Respondent No.3 under cover of its letter dated 07.01.2014 as referred to hereinabove. True copy of the letter dated 30.10.2013 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure PIG. 11, That Respondent N0,3 choe to file an application dated 20.11.2013 before the CIC complaining non — compliance of the orders dated 27.08.2013 and seeking directions to the Petitioner to release the held up information. In the said application nothing specific was pointed out which fell within the purview of the original information sought and which was not disclosed. True copy of the said application is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P/7. 12. That vide notice dated 24.02.2014 the Learned CIC informed the Petitioner about the application dated 20.11.2013 and sought the comments of the Petitioner thereto. True cQpy of the notice dated 24.02.2014 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P/8. 13. That the Petitioner sent its response dated 04.03.2014 about the providing of all the information. True copy of the response dated 04.03.2014 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure. P/9. 14. That thereafter the matter was listed for hearing on 07.05.2014 before Respondent No.1, the then Learned Chief Information Commissioner, who has since retired on or about May, 21, 2014. 15. That during the course of hearing it was pointed out that the order dated 27.08.2013 had been passed without notice to or granting any hearing to the Petitioner and had been complied with nevertheless. Respondent No.l. Learned Chief Information Commissioner was also appraised that the reference to disclosure of vigilance information with the Petitioner and Ministry of Power was not part of the original information sought. Moreover, the Learned Chief Information Commissioner also reacted that since all the 9 information is claimed to have been provided and the order dated 27.08.2013 had been passed without granting any hearing to the Petitioner was per se illegal, she was not passing any further directions and dismissing the application. 16. That the secretary of Respondent No.1 is believed to have taken notes to that effect in her note book. However, when the order dated 15.05.2014, impugned herein, was received by the Petitioner on 27.03,2Q1.4, the Petitioner discovered that the Learned Chief Information Commissioner had retired on 21.05.2014 and the contents of the order were not what transpired during the hearing. However, the subject order carries the signature of Respondent No.1. 17. That the order. dated 15.05.2014 goes beyond the scope of inquiry in as much as disclosure of information which was not originally sought in the original application has been .directed while adjudicating compliance or noncompliance of the order dated 27.08.2013. Moreover, information in the hands of .Ministry of Power has been directed to be disclosed by the Petitioner. Besides the ti order is contrary to what transpired during the hearing. Hence, the order is bad in law, contrary to the judicial pronouncements and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is impugned on the following amongst other grounds ;- GROUNDS A. BECAUSE the Learned Chief Information Commissioner exceeded her jurisdiction by passing orders beyond the scope of Inquiry which was pending befor= heir. B. BECAUSE the Learned Chief Information Commissioner committed material illegality whereby during the course of hearing she gave one impression and the orders passed on 15.05.2014 were to the contrary-knowingly or unknowingly. C. BECAUSE the Learned Chief Information Commissioner committed material illegality by directing the PetitiOner to disclose the information not originally sought or allowing the disclosure in the course of adjudication whether the orders dated 27,08.2013 were complied with or not. d D. BECAUSE the Learned Chief Information Commissioner committed material illegality by directing the PetitiOner to disclose the information/documents which were in the power and possession of another Public Authority i.e. Ministry of Power which is the parent Ministry of the Petitioner. E. BECAUSE the Learned Chief Information Commissioner has committed grave illegality in not reading the order dated 19.05.2014 beforie slonIng It Out rallying on the order presented to her by Respondent No,2 and signing it mechanically. F. BECAUSE the impugned order contains directions on matters which were neither argued, urged or pressed and this could be verified from the manuscript of the notes taken down by the secretary of Respondent No.1,the then Chief Information Commissioner. G. BECAUSE the circumstances of the case warrant laying down of some guidelines on the conduct of the cases by the Learned Information Commissioners and the Chief Information Commissioner. l 18. That the petitioners have not filed any other petition in this Hon'ble Court or Hon'ble Supreme. Court of India against the impugned order dated 15.05.2014. 19. That the documents filed along with this petition are all part of the Commission's record. 20. That this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition bec8use the office of CIC is situated within its territorial limits and his Hon'ble Court can exercise its extra ordinary/supervisory jurisdiction under the Constitution of India. 21. That the requisite court fee of Rs.50.00 has been affixed on the petition which is the appropriate court fee. PRAYER It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to: (a) Call for the manuscript of the notes taken down by the secretary of Respondent No.1 during hearing and examine the same in relation to the text of the order, / (b) set aside order dated 15.05.2014 passed by the then Learned Chief Information Commissioner (Respondent No.1); (c) Issue appropriate directions to the office of Central Information Commission, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaiji Cama Place, New Delhi as to what legal principles must be followed by hearing such matters. (d) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and In the circumstances of the case. Petitioner New Delhi Dated: 06.08.2014 through NI Jagdeep Kishore Advocate IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CIVIL) No. In the matter of: OF 2014 Right to Information Act, 2005 Power Finance Corporation Ltd. Petitioner Versus Smt. Sushma Singh and others ... Respondents AFFIDAVIT Affidavit of Shri Manohar Balwani Son of Late Shri H.R.Balwanl, aged about 31 years, Company Secretary and Public Information Officer, Power Finance Corporation Ltd., Urjanidhi, First Floor 1 Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi. I, Shri Manohar Balwani, the deponent abovenamed, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under. 1. That I am the Company Secretary and Public 40 Information OffiCer and Authorized Officer of Power Finance Corporation Ltd.' I have been dealing with the present matter and am familiar with the facts of the case. As such I am competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That the statement of the facts in the accompanying writ petition are true and correct to my knowledge A. based on records or Petitioner and the legal submissions are believed by me to be true and correct based on advice received and believed to be correct. 3. That the Annexures to this writ petition are tue and correct copies of the originals. DEPONENT VERIFICATION: I, Manohar Balwani, the deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct, no part of it is fale and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at New Delhi on the 6th day of August, 2014. DEPONENT ilnrwcuxa CO) (Fritrux-ii Central Inforrriation Commision. Room No. 306, 2nd Floor, `B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, Shlkaji Cama Place, NewDelhi-110066 Web: www.cic.gov.in Case No. CIC/LS/C/20•6/000061 Dated: 15.5.2014 Shri Sunll Bhasin Nome of the Appellant: Name of the Public Authority: Date of hearing: p.. ,,, ' • r*. ..i, Power: Finance CorporationiK - - _...,..:\ 9;..,_ . . . ., :11:;!•.... 7.5.2014 ' !,..‘ -.: .%. ..i..,..:.0 11 ' I i ., ....,.-.., ,•ic;.. /.._. . .. ,t.i. n •••• ORDER 1. The appellant was present for the hearing. The respondent was present and reepresented by Shri Jagdeep Kishore (Advocate), Shri Manohar Baiwani (Co. Secy.) and Shri Anil Kumar Yadav (AM, CS). 2. Thep resent - appeal is being heard-in relation to the order of the Commission dated 27.8.2013 in file no. CIC/LS/C/2013/000061 wherein following directions were passed: "12. As. noted above, the appellant is seeking information about his own dismissal from service; he is not seeking information about-a . • Disclosure of requested information is not likely to cause invasion / third party. of privacy of any third party. Furthermore, the departmental proceedings have been concluded against him in all respdcts and nothing more is pending.. `Hence, denial of information under clause (j) of Section 8 (1) by the CPIO is totally illegal and unjustified. In my opinion, the orderpassed by the GPIO is .patently illegal and unjustified arid it cannot be allowed to stand and warrants to be set aside. I therefore, set aside the order of the CPIO and direct him to provide certified photo copies of the information/documents requested for)by ,th.e...,vpellant, in 94 weeks time." The respondent provided seine information to the appellant in 3. complaince of the order of the Commission vide letter dated 20.9.2013. _ • "-b..* ,letter, arid list of documents not Thereaftery theappellant.issued renlingler provided- earlier- fo'.ttiO'le:Spondent_The-responde.nt.,-..tias again provided some • - • . • • documents vicieletter dated 7,11.2b14. submits that he has been provided- paftial The- app. • • . ■iid:01-jo- him.. nfOrmation•and,.that,..the..complete ciocument. have not been-pror . The appellant has made following submissions and pressed for the *following _ . e.irihg: c.00.6 • iulih .• 1-idlif dQ- i6iffehriy*F:Iiitiliqieva,80ticthe "Records and files noilng's' of tme v • , ,, with--.the inquiryTtocess .;::, : PFC Managment & Ministry of Power in connection • and dismissal of the appellant are completely missing. - clairpe. . At page no. 21 of the ch?tails of the.notesheet; it- isi _-, that .the., Board of directors, PFC-Was apprised of the case forjts.:06-tiSi eraijOn-' :strut...-v.:Ns :..of da;: , :April 2011, hoyeyeri,thesa- agen ,. In its :meeting nheld.on 1,9th -ed• rp:.:gry .fir)*iii -, regard have been lomnd.-:to... the 'BOO:. irr,this, ' infOrrpplion.the PFC Managemenr thtOgh---his with correspondence held by the appellant . i. .14.6.....201Q,-'3Q;.8:2afo,:. 9 11.11.2009* 11.11.2.00 date innumerpus letter such as letters . -r.addres.;s94:-.0,--..theCM0 28.:4-:411.--anct.so Case' (to begin . with the pirectors (IDA) in connectiori 1. 1.„p.$ as . wp ti • ; , . n . .4the .CMD.ci along. a re. prespntatio disinial).hat;e been provided.-More:pt.t.et;:qt. until is finally culminated in o :. . were . appellahtWhi&h.;:',haVe bednkpi:p.videct the. of is ndtiqe..g; that,.m.any letters the',PFC: Mdnegemien.(thk*bY:• nts fopocip:be..wi.tijout offering any comme • . • • • .. •. • „ •- • • • dpfea(ipg•ttle.: purpose." 'During the hearing the respondent suirlits. that all fe.6otef.sboets- haVe5. been' provided,to. the appellant an0;,that:.as per the list pr'ovici:e,d: by the I is g appellant dated 30.10.2013 some .more documents were proyided. The - Claifilgth appeJtanttsueits-.„„ . the'reaions. Nr non completion of the vigilance•should also be provided. 6. The Commission has already held that the appellant is entitled to the documents pertaining..ta .hisi own dismissal. The Commission hereby-. directs,:, .the respondent to proyide Tecords and ,files notings of the: vigilance u it held : a*: with the PFC Managment & Ministry of Pover in connection with the .inquiry process and.dismissal of.the appellant.,-.%urth_ethiore, the agenda and minutes -• ' ,-. .. 4.,... .,,,, ,C....;.-- .4.,... ,Commisso .the The directions ; .shall. be. • .of - mi 7:--!'--:-.7 :t::tA-c .pp,.;..:.34A%i:- : -wfkl . ,:-Ic---' ' .p.4,.... -1.-_ !2"....7-. , . .:- 1;-_!;,:r ......,.., ',.4,'''' • _..., ..---&,..f. ,...A., --,xj:,, .,‘.. e... —...se,.,..- - !..'".',.-. 'c;;:; - ift • ;,-4.1,2: .,...,,,,...0 -,,,, ,---.1-.. ,.-_, • ,. -.-._ . „,-,-•15-r Sustima •• Chief Infornia,tionC mriNssioner Authenticated .True:Cop.y: •, - 1. Appellant Shri. Sunil Bhasin 3-A, DDA Flat, Friends Colony (East), New:Delhi --110 065 . To Shn,. Manohar Balwani, Company Secy. & CPIO, Powerfinance 'Corporation, Ltd., Urg-anicitli, 1, Barakharnba Lahe, cOhneiyght. P.laPoi ' . ., New Delhi:--.110:001 k-_,--- . - - • ,,,:,-., - ..-,— ‘• 9 f4ymeAt762. 11 2CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, 3hikaji Culla ?hot; Ncw oclhi,110066 File No.CIC/IS/C/2013/00Q061: Appellant ..-.Ptiblic Authority :-Date of Decision Shri Sunil Bhasin Power Finance Corporation. Ltd; New Delhi 27.08.2013 Facts : The appellant had filed the RTI application dated 11.7.2013 with the PIO of.Power inane Corporation Ltd (WL, herein-after), seeking the following information c,.. ••• Corporatio4Winf.iDeCetnber Manager(Finance). frose to the. rank of Deplity;t.re'nerl Kfitilkeitiii:100,9. by dint of:hard work, perspnal integrity and professional merit. I, howeN;er, was I joined M/s Power uncereiTionJoutly..dianitsatid from ipirvico ohtfilzsy'anci:cootcad up Qh4tgat In violation of the principle of natural justicfe dnd.the Constitution of-India, 2. In exercise my rights u/s 6 of the RTI Act,.I request you to provide me certified copies of all the file notingts and records relating to my dismissal . intIudin all thtcOrespOnclente in this regard. 3. I hereby state that the information requested by me is not prohibited from disclosure under any provision of the RTI Act." 2. The PIO of PFCL had responded to it vide letter dated 8.8.2013 refusing to disclose the reqUesled information. The relevant onion of his letter is extracted below "This: is with reference 1.0..yotir:app.licitiowdawci--q4:047,20.-R'MeeiiiedAiti-12.07:2013) s66kifig • infoiiria- tion tinder the Right tO t h •Act,. 2005 regarding certified copies of all the file notings and records relating to your dismissal including all the correspondence in this regard. In this regard, we wi:.h to inform you that the information desired by you has no relationship to any public activity or interest and the same is therefore, exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In view of the above, the information sought by you cannot be disclord." 3. The appellant has not filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority and has filed the present appeal before' this Commission straightaway. In the appeal memo filed before Commission, the appellant has: contende,ci.that",orcler,,;,Ra§94...byt,hpis.pp,lo patently illegal and against the statutory provisions. He hifdfsb .coVeiiCled'thkf'leilatteeil dismissed from service by PRI management mala-fidely and foi. extraneous reasons and that he does not expect justice and fair play from the First Appellate Authority compelling him to seek justice from this Commission. 4. Ordinarily, I would have. rernanded.this matter to the.First.Appellgte;PItlf_dif appropriate. decision - in the 'matter with .liberty to the appe'llant to. move this Commission again in case of his dissatisfaction with the order of the FAA but I am not doing so as the order passed by the CPIO is patently illegal and cannot be allowed to standii for reasons mentioned herein-after. may also add that I am also dispensing with the requirement of giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties as in my opinion, it is not.going. to- serve any useful purpose in view of the patent illegality of the order passed by PIO.. I have; therefore, decided to pass an order in this matter on the basis of material on ?cord. As per,RTI application, the appellant joined PFCL as Assistant Manager in .1993. He 5: rose to the rankof Deputy General Manager- in 2009 by dint of hard Wark-,Zpisonal integrity and professional. merit. It is the allegation of the appellant that he was unceremonious)y - StrCe dismissed from service on cooked up• charges in violation. •of •„ • the...principla:of;frattrallii• •• •• . and the procedure prescribed by law, TAI-J:;thatihOjiatt4f0e.600-th'&.-CP10 'Was • to ftimish him certified-.popies;OF::.thei-cfile:Otings and records relating. to his diS.r.iiissal from service. iaboVe, Cinb refused to disclose this information under s'ectiOn 8(1)0) theRTI•Act. It is pertinent to mention that the appoltult- to 000kin$ ihnsiltwito tosiirdin g his own dismissal from service and not regarding the dismissal of a third *ty. In the circumstances, application of section 8(1)(j) is not sustainable in law. Clause (j) of section 8(1) is- reproduced:below 6. "0.) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to, any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information. Officer or the appellate autffority,*asttie case .may be, is satisfied that the 14rger public interest justifies the '* •infdrmation: <• Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Pdrliament or. a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person." In a catcna of decisions, this Commission has held that an infb-rrnation seeker can 7. seek information relating to himself and not relating to a third party without following the procedure of section 11(1). This is based on sound logic. When he is seeking information about himself, he is not causing unwarranted invasion _of the privacy of any. third party. It bears repetition that the appellant is seeking information about his own dismissal from service and not about any third party. By seeking this information, he is not causing invasion of privacy of any third party. In my opinion, this is the correct interpretation of clause (j). In view of this application of clause (j) by the CPIO in donyipg infoFrnutiOr1 to dip appellant is totally unjustified, It may be apt to refer to certain decisions rendered by this Cotnmission in such 8. like matters. In Col. V.K. Shad —Vs- Indian Army (File No. CIC/LS/A/2011/000617), • • Cpl. Shad was given a non-recordable censure by the competent authority. He had sought copies of the file notings of HQ. Western Command arcl.HQ 2 Corps etc. as also the opinion and findings of the Court of Inquiry. This.ink*i.on;Was.:deni.ed to him at the level of CPIO and the FAA.: However, this.-13ehch'i6t4Sid.e.th6liVedieli::Of..the CPIO and AA and ordered disclosure of requested information to Col. Shad. Para 07 of the said order is reproduced below :- "7. It is incontrovertible that no proceedings are pending against the appellant at present. Hence, the matter is not covered under section 8(1)(hYotthe-RTI Act. It would also not be correct to say that the officers made notingsin.the files in fiduciary capacity. The notings were made in ordinary course and constitute official recoids of the units/formations conderned. In this view of the 'matter, the file -Alotings are disclosable to the appellant. Even. so, in -view of the special attributes of the Armed Forces and their. Command structure, it would not be --expedient ...to - cficlose; • . the identity and designations of the offi cers who made notings in the files it may-adversely. officer de pips cadre. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I hereby-didel,:41a*-:-..entife.. infbrrnation requested for by the appellant, as extracted above, May be suppliedto him subject to the proviso that the names and designations of the...officers who made notinge In the, Mos Would be obiltorated In terms of seoifon 1.0(1) of the ATI Act." It may also be pertinent to mention that the Union of India had filed WP(C) 9. 499/2012 and CM..1059/291 against the, aforesaid order of this Commissi9n.in.the Delhi HigliTourt. The Delhi High Court in judgment dated 9.11.2012 haelliKelgifhi-treion of this Bench. .The operative para of the order is extracted below :"25. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. The impugned orders passed by the CIC are sustained. The information sought by Messers V.K. Shad and Ors will be supplied within two weeks from today, in terms of the orders passed by the CIC.." 10. The ratio of the aboi4 decision's squarely applies in the present case. I would like to refer to another case in this context i.e. S.K. Sahni .4s- Indian II. Army (File Nos. CIC/LS/A/2012/002157, 002158 & 002159). The appellant was a Lieutenant General in the Army. He was court martialled and held guilty for various acts of omission and commission and inflicted punishment of imprisonment of three years. Through his RTI applications, he had sought copy of the Court of Inquiry, copy of the file notings and copy of the corresponden6e relating to his dismissal from service and infliction of imprisonment. This information was denied to him at the level of CPIO and First Appellate Authority. The matter came up before this Commission and this Bench in order dated 15.1.2013 held that as the Court Martial proceedings had been completed against the appellant(Lt. Genl. S.K. Sabi) in all respects, the requested information could not be denied to him under section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The operative para of the order is extracted below :- • "30. To sum up, I hold that the proceedings against the appellant have been completed in all respects and that disclosure of requested information wJl not cause Pant. prejudice to the proceedings pending against Col. Pramod Kumar and.;4n.,:ed._:•fr Col. oril is,nutp i ncluding JAQ,.opijkip.r1,,. hold that .eq.st.ed mroimatlon, the above, hereby direct I also RTI Mt.. In view -6.1. of thel . )(O 1 c tionTS( se. discloSe the CPIO under of the Army Headquarters to requisition theinfoim4tion, requested for by any in pa 25 above from the concerned HQS viz.. 11 *Corps, Western the appellant Command and the Army HQs. and supply it to the appellant in a consolidated form - Armed Even so, in view of the spcial attributes of the on paymentof requisite fee. Forces and their Command structure, it would not be expedient to disclose identity made notings in the files as it-may adversely affect and designation of officers who spirit de corps of the officer cadre. Hence, the CPIO will be-at.libertrIo.Oblifeiate. the • Act." names and designations of such officers in terms of section 10(1) ofithaTI. • •• .• hi-say,:cttisini8a1. about As noted above, the appellant is seeking information from 12. service; . he is not seekinginformati.Oh..---about a third ' piiti..-'....Ticldstiti Of requested • • .- ,invasion of privacy of any third party. Further more, the infomation is not likely to cause concluded against him in all respects and-nothing more , oci) by. ole CPIO is Clausa 0).ar •,,,,,to r departril6nteti prisx+ku•dinspOlAys beon is pending Hence, denial of information under my oliinion, the order passed by. the.CPIO-is,patently illegal In ; therefore, set totalVillegal_and unjustified. and unjustified and it cannot be allowe4 to stand and warrantscertified to be set aside. I photo copies of the the CPIO and direct him to .provide ` .___. Sdiaside the order of 004',..:in,0-4,:e6- 104-1.t#,!-_ -_ ..infoimation/doCuments requestckfbi=6,..t.ti'd I• ( M.L..Sharma ) Inforthationeornmissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of- orders shall be supplied against appl1qa r and payment of the charges, prescribed undeç the Act, to the CPIO of this • . trar , arties The CPIO, Power Finance Corporation Ltd; "Urjanidhi", 1 Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place,— New Delhi. 2. • • Shri Sunil Bhasin, pA,F:lats, Friends Colony(East), Nev 1- SPEED —POST PYTrOUXe Pi 3 The Public Information Officer Power Finance Corporation Ltd Ref.SB/RTI- 1/2013 "thjanidhi", 1 , Barakhamba Lane Connaught Place, New Delhi —110001 Subject: Application under RTI Act, 2005 Sir, Pursuant to 'the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, 1 herby submit my application seeking you to kindly provide me the required information on the matters/queries relating to the affairs of your Corporation is mentioned hereunder :- Sunil Bhasin A- Name of the Applicant: 1.3- Address for Correspondence: - 3A-DDA Flats, Friends Colony (East) , New Delhi-110065 C- Required information :I joined !Ws Power Finance Corporation Ltd in December 1993 as Assistant Manager (Finance) . 1 rose to the rank of 'Deputy General Manager in 2009 by dint of hard work, personal integrity and professional merit. I, however, was unceremoniously dismissed from service di n flimsy and cooked up charges in violation of the principle of natural justice and the Constitution of India. 2. In exercise my riglirs u/s 6 of the RTI Act,- I request you to provide me certified copies of all the file notings and records relating to my dismissal * including all the correspondence in this regard. 3. I hereby state that the information requested by me is not prohibited from disclosure under any provision of the RTI Act. D- Particulars of the fees paid :- A postal Order no. 05F 300485 dated 2" June, 2012 for Rs- 10/- drawn in favour of " Public Information Officer , M/s Power Finance Corporatioll Ltd , New Delhi 110001 . This is to certify that I , Sunil Bhasin , son of Late Shri A.L. Bhasin is a citizen of India. I flu undertake to pay the requisite fees for supply of the copies / information as provided under theRT I Act as and when intimated. Thanking you, Yours truly, (Sunil Bhasin) Applicant Date: July, 2013 Place : New Delhi VEncl: As above oZ "cirlyZ Loa P/4 61.1i& L POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD "(Ifffd wort vtro,i) (A Govt. of India Undertakin,, (3(11-Vii.n. 9001:2008 ITTfrffrd) Dispatch No, (ISO 9001:2008 Certific: 013755 Dated: 20.09.2013 No. 1:05:108:05(C1CA5/C/2013/000061) Shri Sun11 Bhasin, 3A, DQA Flats, Friends Colony (East), N e■,V Delhi -110066. Subject: Compliance of CIC Order under Right to Information Act 2005. (Case No. CIC/L5/C/2013/000061) Sir, In compliance with Directions of Central Information Commission (CIC) issued vide its Order dated 27.08.201 freceived on 02.09.2013), we are forwarding you, certified photocopies of file noiings and records relating to your dismissal fAnnexure:Aj. Kindly acknowledge the receipt of this letter. Thanking you, Yours faithfully For Power Finance Corporation limited anohar Balwani) Cornpny Secretary & PIO Copy to: Central Information Commission (CIC), (No- 0137 50 Room No, 308, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. ) 44)--rd fl-tif-671 -4)vrif4R1— , 1, 1 1U:4T ch, mytie ;11 - 110001 (P1rti : 23456000 : 011-23412545 Regd. Office :"UrjanidhC, 1, BarAhamba Lane, Connaught Plac©, l'!z,vi Delhi-110001 Phones 23456000 Fax : 011-23412545 .14 Arme,;(wce. -1)/5 ThT3 q—q.Ri. POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. „9,<tm fiT ,J401-0 (A Govt. of India Undertaking) (ISO 9001:2008 Certified) O1T4AM.36. 9001:2008 VPITPId •• OI Dispatch N. Dated: 07.01.2014. No. 1:05:108:05(C1C) Shri Sunit Bhasln, 3A, DDA Flats, Friends Colony (East), .New Delhi - 110065. Subject: Additional Information sought Limier RTI_Act Sir, Further to our letter No. 1:05:108:05(ClC/L5/C/2013/000061) dated 20.09.2013 and with reference to your letter dated 30.10.2013 seeking further information, we are forwarding herewith the same, since made available by the concerned Unit of PFC. Kindly acknowledge the receipt of this letter. Thanking you, Yours faithfully For Power Finance Corporatio9eLimited aN4 (Manohar Balwani) Company Secretary & PIO ■•■ ••.0.• ■■•••••■ •• ■• •••• •■■• 4;1 : 4Rmi—ii c •••«-.. ..•••• 4,-ftd rthi, .11 RA -.110001 -Tut( Rogd. Office • 'Urjonldhl' 1 Bw-nkhamba Lano, Connaught Place, Now DeIhI-110001 23456000 tfff : 011-23412545 Phones:23456000 Fax : 011-23412545 SPEED —POST Ref. SB/RTI-2/2013 30` October,2013 A hri Manohar Balwani Company Secretary & PLO Power Finance Corporation Ltd "Urjanidhi", 1 , Barakhamba Lane Connaught Place, New Dethi —110001 Subject: Information under Right to Information (MI) Act, 2005 (CASE NO .CIULS/C/20 13/000061) Sir, This has reference to receipt of your letter no: 1:05:108: (CIC-LS/C/2013/000061) of dated 20-9-13 duly accompanied with the information under the case referred as above. A you have claimed in the letter that the requisite information viz records and noting relating to the dismissal of the appellant from the service of rho COrptiratioh • ha y bash furnished in pursuant to the direction of the Hon'bie Information Commissioner (CIC) but it is observed on scrutinizing the information that the records are incomplete and found to be missing there from . kccordingly, the status of the incomplete and missing records in this regard is broadly prepared and placed hereunder . for your kind perusal:- a) Records and files noting of the vigilance unit held with the PFC Management & Ministry of Power in connection with the inquiry process and dismissal of the appellant are completely missing . b) those Mostly , the information is found to be incomplete and inadequate in cases where the references for the supporting documents forming a part of the information are being provided in the noting /main documen.ts but the same have not been furnished by you . For instance, the references. of the flag. A, E, B,E&A and so on have been provided in the reply of the presenting officer of the inquiry 1161d in the case (refer to page no . 28 of your information ) but these supporting documents are not found to have been attached therewith . In view of this, there is a need to be provided such supporting documents wherever it has been referred in your records , to qualify for a proper and valid information . c) At the page no. 21 of the details of the note sheet , it is claimed that the Board of directors , PFC was apprised of the case for its consideration in its meeting held on 19th April )2011 , however , the agenda and minutes of the 130D in this regard are found to be missing in the received information . d No record of the correspondences held by the appellant with the PFC Management through his innumerous letters in connection with the ref. case to begin with rn,.qfrinp, a representation to the CID against the impugned order of his transfer . . ttpally culminated. inlo• his dismissal in violation a. .11'. the.canons of • • •• of natip:al justice .of-the Constitution . -available. information / e) Duly executed affida v it by PLO to this effect that• all the . ' .- • .cr".;" - • pp e lE an t, %' ,-6: th e o f th e a . ,15e&i.:::pi-oVided- to the "P rd6 6.11,1 d ismissa l r 1ted to RTE. application of dated I 1-743 filed with the', ..1140 in -F.esp.O.rie. to his 40e. in - -all _ respects ,as directed. by the FforCble Corporation was complete trifo.trntio.rt Commission and no such record was held back by you in this regard . tef,;'•,. fn view of- the position explained as above, you . are requested to kindly - lake, the. •necessary .steps' in the matter . .arid arrange to furnish all the referred missing and incomplete'rec9rds / documents along with the affidavit duly executed in compliance ., of the ord6r, ...., of thd:iiion'bie-informatiprt • ,..„ . .. •. • • , Commission under the• RTE Act . ' . - ' - ' .-' •'. --- ,-.. , - 'f- . , . —.. -',...,,- - , ._ _;.'"' ' - ',./.,-- " • - • , 1.4 ., ••.... '' '.....• . *_-;,.. ••••,i-C..-, .-....t. ' ..e...X. TV' ,i-•V' ' : .., , '1,4":.• ........ " t...••••— - .). . -- .. --• .''''' ff. ., • • ''- , ,--, . - _ .....-; •,- .:-"t?.'C' .•'- :•• .-..;t• ' -, '''s 'i ....■ - .--..,..S ' ..4 . ,--, !•-;..., . ,..i4 .•'• '.. ,. '..V..,41i4..., 4,.."..—, I'l•. ..• R. . •• Copy. to:.. . „ . :. . -. : • • . •. t i-i- .. o''._.k.i.. n .rits-sio nei--------.t.-i- o p-• -"b1e, -I.-if Of• i- - t. :t. . .i. .--..CehtraLinformatibil Commission 4 .•. •.. . . , . ' .. • • - For in fo ili•alkii3Ol'ei$e;::. .--, . . 4.-:-.,',1,--: ....''''),;r''' -T.ii•ift:iiIi Y kiyitil iiWITit,,, UgSillia.. ..,.....,,raklifitt*IVrT*kW , ,. .. ,:r ,.. - . - • : : - 0 : .. .,i*.., .. _,. ,..,..„..,.,,,--#..,e,44y?-. -,:r. ,,,fr.40:, . • .,. .....1, -.--- .•:-144-zr . - • .:,-. ..--...,,,vfi'r.,- r•-•elt-,7,1' . ' • .• - - • •. `.N6W3t) el hin,toU • • . .• • ••. `.• 1)4 ,• . .‘-: • r. • • • • . • • . .., .... • • .. ; • '21— ",' ,. _,, -:. . • ', • - ' , a 53 Ammo, (P/7 File no: CIC/I.S/C/2013/000061 /./ [he Second Appellate Authority Central Information Commission August Kranti Bhawan Bhikaji Cama Place Nc.)W Delhi -110066 ... ./S, Ref. SB /RTI-C/2/2013 / .,...-.N, :'' ili /).:,;.. g: c 1c i kv-, 612A ..,. Subject: Appeal u/s18 of the RA,T,Lti fOr contempt notice issuance -Non-Implementation of the CIC order Sir, Vide Order no. CIC/LS/C/2013/000061 dated 274' August , 2013 (Copy enclosed as Annexure - `A') the Flon'ble Information Commissioner, Shri M.L. Sharma directed the Public Information Officer 'HO) of M/s Power Finance Corporation Ltd , PSU duly Administered and controlled by Ministry of ['owe!. , Govt. of .1.ndia to provide the requisite information on an RTI application no . S4/M-1/2013' dated 11-7-13 duly filed by the Appellant but it did not comply it fully and completely. This is nothing but It httioutitio to poi-1110100 votttomps or the cm: therefore , it would attract a punitive action under the RTI Act . Orthir by Elia ktiMliptit4Iptit F urther, it may be mentioned that PIO vide letter no. 1:05:108:4C1C-IIS/C/2013/00(061) of dated 20-9 - 13(refer to Annexure -B) claimed to have forwarded the said information and records is per the UIC order but it was-found to be incomplete and missing. In view of this, the status of the missing and incomplete information was prepared and sent to the PIO vide letter no SB/RTI-2/2013 dated 30-10-13 (Refer to Annexure -C) for necessary action. Shockingly, it failed to move the PIO in the matter as the P10 has riot responded to the letter . Undoubtedly, it appears that the respondent has been evading ihc inrorni-ation to the appellant on the unreasonable and unfounded grounds. In view of the position explained as above , it is clearly evident that the respondent has committed a contempt of order the Hon'ble Information Commission by its' failure to provide the complete Akd adequate information sought by the appellant under the RTI. Act . Therefore, I hereby Weal the Hon'ble CommiSsion under section 18 of the RTI Act for looking in to the matter and of direct the PIO , M/s Power Finance Corporation Ltd to release the held up information and records to the dismissal of the appellant in accordance with the requirements. referred to in the - enclosed Annexure -C without prejudice to his right to information under the RTE Act . I hope and am sure that the llon'ble Commissioner will consider and take an appropriate action in the contemptuous issue as per the provisions of the RTI Act. lhanking you, Yours truly, (Sunil 13hasio ) Appellant Pk ce - New Delhi Datc:„? oveniber, 2013 Ends:- As above 3-A,DDA Hats , F=riends 6olony (East) New Delhi —110065 2.C1 1 Pnre)wxe . RTIMATTER I TIME BOUND $) 3fizATT Central Information Commission 2 TR, r47-1 T/2" Floor, 'B' Wing 31TRU tf t ITTi/ August Kranti Mayan (twit raii/131iikaji Cama Place 7-q G eca - 110066 / New Delhi - 110066 Date: 24.02.2014 F. No. q_CiLS/C/2013/000061/SS Shri Sunil Bhasin Vs Powerfinance Corporation Ltd. This has reference to the Commission's Order No. CIC/LS/C/2012/000061 dated 27.08.2013 in the matter of Shri Sunil Bhasin Vs Power Finance Corporation Ltd. The Commission has received a petition Ref. SB/RTI-C/2/2013 dated 20.11.2013 2. (Dy. No. 184034/13) from the appellant alleging that in compliance of the Commission aforesaid order, the respondents CPIO has not provided the complete information in respect 01 his RT1.applIcgtIon, He hos further stored Mot tbitjagazaticul,41,4.144C,Racida his letter dated 30,10.2013 (copy enclosed) addressed _to the CPIO has not been received by him. A copy of the appellant's petition is enclosed. The CPIO, Power Finance Corporation Ltd. is therefore, directed to furnish his 3. comments in the matter, to the Commission, within 2 weeks of the receipt of this communication. A copy of his reply should also be endorsed to the appellant, under intimation to this Commission. Encl: As above. (D.C. Singh) Deputy Secretary & Dy. Registrar Telefax.: 2618 6535 e-mail: [email protected] To, Shri Manohar Balwani, Company Secy. & CP10, \,/ Power Finance Corporation Ltd., Urganidhi, 1, Barakhamba Lane, Connought Place, NEW DELHI — 110 001 Copy to: Shri Sunll Bhasin, 3 —A, DDA Flats, Friends Colony (East) New Delhi — 110 065 /9 Prthe)c uA). 111 171—qR" tifiT-4" .ThItTRTiff fft POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. ■ J144)11) (A Govt. of India Undertaking) (3dTil.31). 9001:2008 WITTPO e3Y, \\\)) o- (ISO 9001:2008 Certified) Dated 04.03.2014 F.No. CIC/LS/C/2013/000061/SS SS The Deputy Secretaiy & Deputy Registrar, Central ,Information Commission (CIC), 2nd Floor, "B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,( Bhikaji Cama Place, New Dellii-110066. 11r . -3 • - / Subject : RTI Appeal filed by Sh. Sunil Bhasin information . -pest of-norT4ceeeipt of complete - Sir, This has reference to your Letter No. CIC/LS/C/2013/000061/SS dated 24.02.2014 regarding petition Ref. SB/RTI-C/2/2013 dated 20.11.2013 filed by Sh. Sunil Bhasin (hereinafter called "the Appellant"), complaining that PFC has not provided the 6ornpleta Information in raapect of his RTI APPiloskt.ion and that the itilbrmAtion as indicated in his letter. dated 30.10.2013 has not been received by him. In this regard, we would like to inform you that in compliance with CIC Order dated 27.08.2013 (received on 02.09.2013), PFC vide its letter dated 20.09.2013 provided all the relevant information to the Appellant and further, in response to the appellant's letter dated 30.10.2013, further information sought by Sh. Sunil Bhasin was provided vide our letter dated 07.01.2014. A copy of the said letter dated 07.01.2014 alongwith dispatch proof and the speed post-delivery proof are annexed herewith for your kind. information. Thanking You, Youis faithfully, For Power Finance Corporation Limited avl anohar Balwani) Company Secretary & Pro Copy to: Sh. Sunil Bhasin, 3A, DDA Flats, Friends Colony (East), New Delhi-110065. ■••■■ ifF1-1-671 Regd. Office : -thvilf4Rr', 1, 41-aCtiir i, -;TT-d fir, r R - 1 woo 1 : ••••■••■•••■•••••■•■•••......,■. 23456000 ristlicir : 011-23412545 1, Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001 Phones : 23456000 Fax : 011.23412545 tffrqZ/ Website www.pfcindia.com ''** 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CIVIL) No. OF 2014 110 Power Finance Corporation Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Smt. Sushma Singh and others ... Respondents APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR STAY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDER DATED 15.05.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH : 1. That the Petitioner has filed the present Petition impugning order dated 15.05.2014 whereby Respondent No.1 has not only issued directions, while considering the complaint of non-compliance of the original direction, beyond the scope and content of the original order dated 27.05.2013 passed by the Learned Information Commissioner. 2. That by the said impugned order dated 15.05.2014, Respondent No.1 has not only exceeded and gone beyond the scope of the original order but has also directed the Petitioner to disclose information which is • in the possession and domain of another Public Authority i.e. Ministry of Power. 3. That all other items of information directed to be disclosed under original order dated 27.08.2013 had been so disclosed to Respondent No.3 which was duly reported to Respondent N .1 and as such there was nothing left to be complied. 4. That the facts and reasons given In the writ petition may kindly be read as a part of this application for any other fact or information as it may be deemed necessary for consideration of this Hon'ble Court for grant of interim relief. 5. That the present application is being filed bonafide and such information which is not in the possession of the Petitioner cannot be disclosed even otherwise. 6. That the petitioner will suffer irreparable harm and injury if the indulgence is not granted by this Hon'ble Court. 7. That it will be in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience if the indulgence sought is granted. PRAYER It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to : (a) R. by an ex-parte ad-interim order grant interim stay of the implementation of order dated 15.05.2014 passed by the Learned Chief Information Commissioner; (b) confirm the aforesaid order after notice to the respondent; (c) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hontle Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Petitioner Through New Delhi Dated : 06.08.2014 Jagdeep Kishore Advocate ti As IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(CIVIL) No. In the matter of: OF 2014 Right to Information Act, 2005 Power Finance Corporation Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Smt. Sushma Singh and others ... Respondents AFFIDAVIT or Late Shrl H.R.Balwani, aged about 51 years, Company Secretary and Public Information Officer, Power Finance Corporation Ltd., Urjanidhi, First Floor 1 Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Affidavit of Shrl Mohr balwanl on I, Shri Manohar Balwani, the deponent abovenamed, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under. 1. That I am the Company Secretary and Public Information Officer and Authorized Officer of Power Finance Corporation Ltd. I have been dealing with the present matter and am familiar with the facts of the case. As such I am competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That the statement of the facts in the accompanying application for stay are true and correct to my cl) 414 Lb 1-i POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. (4TrTd *1\r`t" ST (A Govt. of India Undertaking) •311c") OTT4.Tii.31)-. 9001:2008 34411P1c0 96,31— (ISO 9001:2008 Certified) 024330 Dispatch No. Dated: 03rd November, 2014 No: 1:05:108:1:RTI(658) Sh. Sandeep Gautam, Flat No. 8038, E-Block, Gaur Green City, Vaibhav Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad — 201 010. Subject: Information under Right to Information Act, 2005 Sir, This is with reference to your application dated 30.09.2014, transferred to us by the Ministry of Power (MoP) vide its letter No. 10/5/2014/RTI/00518 dated 09.10.2014 (received on 13.10.2014) under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In this regard, the information pertaining to Power Finance Corporation Limited (PFC) is given as under:S.No. A(1) A(2) A(3) A(4) Information sought Are the PSUs recruiting engineers on the basis of GATE score? Information Supplied PFC being a financial institution, mostly the engineers with postgraduation in Finance are recruited for posts at Officer level (E2 grade). There has been no recruitment of Engineers on the basis of GATE score in recent past. Are the PSUs, which are recruiting Not applicable engineers on the basis of GATE score, a minimum also asking for percentage of marks at the qualifying degree level examinations? Have the PSUs carried out any study No such study has been carried out by on the basis of which they have PFC. decided that a particular percentage of marks obtained at the Degree level contribute to better performance on the job. If yes, please provide the details and documents. The marks awarded by different PFC does not have any such system. Some engineering colleges vary. 1 TrAlfff ThebuinW, 1, €11,<ING11 -1* - 110001 ViTti 23456000 It4E : 011-23412545 Regd. Office : "Urjanidhi", 1, Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Phones : 23456000 Fax : 011-23412545 Website : www.pfcindia.com • CIN : L65910DL1986G01024862 A(5) _ E3(1) 8(2) B(3) colleges are very strict in awarding marks. Some other engineering colleges give marks more freely. Do the PSUs have a system to address this issue? If yes, please provide the . details and documents. Will it not be proper if only GATE score is used for selection of Engineers as it would provide a common standard for judging suitability of candidates? Do the PSUs prescribe a minimum percentage of marks at the qualifying degree level/ MBA level for recruitment of experienced professionals? If yes, please provide the details and documents. The desired information does not fall under the category of "information" as defined in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. For recruitment of experienced professionals, PFC prescribes specific criteria related to minimum qualification, experience and age limit depending upon the position under consideration. All the eligibility criteria help the Corporation in short listing the candidates of minimum desired level for further selection process at PFC. Have the PSUs carried out any study No such study has been carried out by which has established that marks PFC. obtained by a candidate at the qualifying degree level/ MBA level, continue to affect his performance for rest of his life? If yes, please provide the details and documents. There is no minimum percentage of PFC, in line with the "Power Finance Limited Recruitment marks by Public Corporation prescribed Enterprises Selection Board (PESB) at Rules", lays down job specifications for employees Level Board for Below level qualifying degree appointment of Directors to the indicating the eligibility requirements in terms of minimum educational Boards of PSUs. Please provide a copy of the and/or professionals qualifications; document/ study that justifies this length, nature and quality of practice that requires that a junior experience; upper age limit, etc. in /middle/ senior level manager respect of each position being of requirement The Technocrat must have 60% at the advertised. qualifying degree examination but a minimum percentage of marks at Director is not required to have 60% qualifying degree level depends upon the job responsibility. marks. The recruitment and appointment of Board Level Appointees is within the jurisdiction of Public Enterprises Selection Board PESB . 2 C(1) Have the PSUs taken any approval for The information sought following apparently illogical and applicant is not specific. unscientific, and therefore arbitrary HR practices which clearly violate Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. If yes, please provide the details and documents. The Supreme Court of India has observed on many occasions that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the constitution. by the Thanking You, Yours faithfully, For Power Finance Corporation Limited (Manohar Balwani) Company Secretary as PIO Copy to: (IYPIeratz4 NO' 0 24 33 Sh. S. Benjamin, CPIO 86 Under Secretary (RTI), Ministry of Power, Govt. of India, Shram. Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 3
© Copyright 2024