Central Information CommissionD Sarat Chandran vs Rubber Board on 10 April, 2023Author:Saroj PunhaniBench:Saroj Punhaniके   य सूचना आयोग\n                        Central Information Commission\n                           बाबागंगनाथमाग, मु नरका\n                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                         नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067\n\n\n\nFile No : CIC/RUBBO/A/2022/654393 +\n          CIC/RUBBO/A/2022/655848\n\nD SARAT CHANDRAN                                        ......अपीलकता/Appellant\n\n                                      VERSUS\n                                      बनाम\nCPIO,\nJOINT RUBBER PRODUCTION\nCOMMISSIONER (Dev) I/C.,\nTHE RUBBER BOARD, P.B NO\n1122, SUB JAIL ROAD,\nKOTTAYAM-686002, KERALA.                              .... तवाद गण /Respondent\n\n\nDate of Hearing                   :   28/03/2023\nDate of Decision                  :   28/03/2023\n\nINFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani\n\nNote - The above mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision\nas these are based on similar RTI Applications.\n\nRelevant facts emerging from appeals:\n\nRTI application filed on          :   28/04/2022\nCPIO replied on                   :   19/05/2022\nFirst appeal filed on             :   23/06/2022\nFirst Appellate Authority order   :   22/07/2022\n2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   10/10/2022\n                                        1\n                                  CIC/RUBBO/A/2022/654393\nInformation sought:The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2022 seeking the following\ninformation:"1. Will the copy of the application dated 11.08.2022 sent to your office by\n    the Special Tahsildar, Additional LA Unit, Civil Station, Kudappanakkunnu,\n    Thiruvananthapuram, (referred to in Certificate No. Reg.3/138/11/\n    Valuation/ 2019-20/RPD) for assessing the value of the rubber trees standing\n    in the lands acquired in Karippur Village for ISRO, LPSC in Valiyamala,\n    Nedumangad, be made available?2. Will the copy of the file in your office containing the information relating to\n    the assessment of value for the purpose be made available?"The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 19.05.2022 by stating as\nunder:"Qn. No.1: As perSection 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act,2005, the disclosure of\n   information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has\n   no connection with any public activity or interest, or which would cause\n   unwarranted invasion into the privacy of the individual are exempted to the\n   extent it is not found to be in public interest. Therefore, it is informed that the\n   copy of the said application from the Special Tahsildar, Additional LA Unit, Civil\n   Station, Kudappanakkunnu, Regional cannot be made available as requested\n   for.Qn.No. 2: As persection 8(1)(g)of the RTI Act, the disclosure of any\n   information which is likely to cause threat to the life and property of another\n   person, such information can be refused to be given. Therefore, it is informed\n   that considering the threat that may be caused to the life and property of the\n   complainant and the officer who took action, copies of the records containing\n   the names and other particulars cannot be given as requested for."Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.06.2022. FAA's\norder, dated 22.07.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.2CIC/RUBBO/A/2022/655848\n\nInformation sought:The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2022 seeking the following\ninformation:"1. Was the value of the rubber trees standing in the lands acquired in Karippur\nVillage for ISRO, LPSC in Valiyamala, Nedumangad, as per Certificate No.\nReg.3/138/11/Valuation/2019-20/RPD, assessed in accordance with the norms\nand directions stipulated by the Rubber Board? If so, how much? Will the details\nbe disclosed?2. If not, what are the reasons?3. Who were the officials deputed by the Rubber Board for assessing the value of\nthe rubber trees? What are their designations? Will it be disclosed?"The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 19.05.2022 and stated as under:"On. No.1: In assessing the value of the rubber trees, assessment was made in\naccordance with the norms and directions stipulated by the Rubber Board.Qn.No. 2: Not applicable.Qn.No.3: The Rubber Board deputes officers having technical expertise for\nassessing the value of rubber trees.As perSection 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act,2005, " information which relates to personal\ninformation, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or\ninterest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the\nindividual " are exempted from disclosure. Therefore, it is informed that the names\nand particulars of the officials who made the assessment cannot be given."Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.06.2022. FAA's\norder, dated 22.07.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the\ninstant set of Second Appeal (s).3Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:The following were present:-Appellant: Present through video-conference.Respondent: K .P. Rajeeve Dy. Rubber Production Commissioner & CPIO present\nthrough video-conference.The Appellant narrated at length the gensis of instant RTI Applications being the\nalleged irregularity of Respondent organization in not granting proper\ncompensation to land owners including Appellant against plantation of rubber\ntrees on land which was acquired by ISRO. In this regard, he also invited attention\nof the bench towards his latest written submission dated 22.03.2023 wherein he\nincluding interalia stated as under -"...1. For the expansion of ISRO, LPSC, Valiyamala, Nedumangad, Govt of\nIndia has decided to acquire 67.68 acres of land including the appellants land in\nKaripur Village, Nedumangad taluk under theRight to Fair Compensation and\nTransparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,in\npublic interest .2. The Special Tahsildar who is the land acquisition Officer has the responsibility to\ncalculate and finalize the compensation to be paid to each land owner .The\namount of compensation constitutes the market price of the land plus the value of\ntrees standing therein plus the value of other assets.3. In order to determine the compensation for land acquisition the value of the\nrubber trees standing on the land to be acquired has to be determined by the Land\nAcquisition Officer .But he has no technical knowledge in determining the value of\nrubber trees . As perSection 29(2)of the Land Acquisition Act the Special Tahsildar\nwho has entrusted the task of land acquisition has everyright to use the services of\nRubber Board for determination of value of rubber trees. For this Special Tahsildar\nhas sought public assistance from Rubber Board and Rubber Board has given\nassistance publicly.4. The Rubber Board is the only public sector undertaking doing the service of\nassessing the value of rubber trees in Kerala. Rubber Board has their own\nguidelines and norms for assessing the value of Rubber trees for this they impose\nservice charge and GST from the applicant. As per their guidelines and norms the\nvalue of rubber trees of each farmer is to be assessed after collecting the following4details, the tapping age of the rubber trees ,average estimated total yield from the\ntrees, the available timber volume of the trees, the present market price of rubber\nand salvage value, estimated cost of maintenance , processing etc and the\nestimated net income that may be received on the basis of the current price and\nexpenses. For assessing the above matters the assistance from the concerned\nfarmers is also necessary.5. At the request of Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition the assessment of the value\nof about 23000 rubber trees belonging to 133 farmers was prepared separately\nfor each farmer by the Rubber Board without giving any notice to the farmers, in\none day. A certificate dt 08/10/2020 was issued by Rubber Board to the Special\nTahsildar stating that the said certificate is issued on the basis of application\nreceived at Rubber Board Regional Office, Nedumangad on 11/08/2020.A Ref\n3/38/11/valuation/2019-20/RPD dt 08/10/2020 is also noted in the certificate.6. Normally four to six months is required for collecting the details and for the\nassessment of the value of about 23000 rubber trees belonging to 133 farmers\nbased on the guidelines and norms issued by the Rubber Board, if sufficient man\npower is available to them. There is shortage of rubber trees assessed in the\napplicant's property and also the property of other family members. The Rubber\nBoard has not followed their norms and guidelines in assessing the value of rubber\ntrees. The norms in which the present assessment was made has not been\nmentioned in the certificate if compensation is fixed based on the certificate of\nRubber Board there will be huge deficit in the amount of compensation and may\ncause heavy loss to the appellant and his family members .As land owners, the\nappellant and his family members have a right to verify whether the details\ncollected and value assessed are correct or not and challenge the same before the\nAuthority mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act,2013.7. To ascertain this fact the appellant has filed six applications under RTI Act on\n 28/04/2022 to the CPI0 of the Nedumangad Regional Office of the Rubber Board\n                                          xxx18. In order to determine the compensation for land acquisition the value of the\nrubber trees standing on the land to be acquired has to be determined by the Land\nAcquisition Officer. As perSection 29(2)of the Land Acquisition Act the Special\nTahsildar who is entrusted the task of land acquisition has every right to use the\nservices of Rubber Board for determination of value of rubber trees. The Special\nTahsildar has sought public assistance from Rubber Board and Rubber Board has\ngiven assistance publkty. The reason stated for refusing the second request is the5provisions contained inSection 8(1)(g)of RTI Act. The said provisions is in respect\nof disclosure of information which is likely to cause threat to the implementation\nof the law or security or leading to identification of source of information or\ncausing threats to personal safety of any person who has rendered secret\nassistance. Rubber Board is an institution providing service to the needy. They are\ndoing public service. There is no harm in providing information in the file regarding\nthe details of assistance given by the Rubber Board in collecting the details and\nassessing the value of rubber trees. The activities of Rubber Board in this matter\nwill not come with in the purview ofSection 8(1)(g).There is no information\ncontained in the file ,the disclosure of which may cause threat to the person or\nproperty of any individual .Therefore the findings of CPIO and the First Appellant\nAuthority are erroneous ,unlawful and against the provisions inRTI Act...."In case no. CIC/RUBBO/A/2022/654393 -The CPIO while reiterating the contents of his latest written submission dated\n23.03.2023 submitted that for points no. 1 , no copy of the application dated\n11.08.2022 send by the Special Tahsildar, Additional LA Unit, Civil Station,\nKudappanakkunnu, Thiruvananthapuram, (referred to in Certificate No.\nReg.3/138/11/ Valuation/ 2019-20/RPD) for assessing the value of the rubber\ntrees standing in the lands acquired in Karippur Village for ISRO, LPSC in\nValiyamala, Nedumangad, (as sought for) is available in their office records. He\nfurther tendered his apology to the fact that due to clerical error the date of\napplication dated 11.08.2022 has been inadvertently mentioned as 11.08.2020\nwhich may kindly be avoided. While for point no. 2, the complete details of files\nrelated to valuation of Rubber trees contains the elements of personal\ninformation of third parties/owners or officers particularly, which cannot be\ndivulged in view ofSection 8(1)(j)of RTI Act.The Appellant interjected to contest the complete denial of information by the\nCPIO is not appropriate in view of the fact the Appellant's land was also acquired\nduring acquisition process for plantation of Rubber trees. Therefore, relevant\ninformation concerning him atleast should be provided. In response to it, the\nCPIO at the behest of the Commission agreed to share the requisite information\nconcerning Appellant only.In case no. CIC/RUBBO/A/2022/655848 -6The Appellant while again reiterating the contents of his above mentioned factual\nbackground expressed his dissatisfaction with the response of CPIO. In this\nregard, the Commission apprised the Appellant that the queries raised by him are\nseeking clarification based on conjectures which concededly do not falls under the\nambit of "information" as perSection 2(f)of RTI Act.The CPIO by placing reliance on his written submission dated 23.03.2023\nsubmitted that the queries raised by the Appellant are majorly outsideSection\n2(f)of RTI Act and also hit bySection 8(1)(j)/ (e) of the Act. Nonetheless, a point\nwise reply along with relevant permissible information has been parted with the\nAppellant.Decision:The Commission at the outset upon a perusal of records and after hearing\nsubmission of both the parties observes that the core issue raised in the instant\nmatters is not as much as about seeking access to information as much it is about\nthe redressal of Appellant's grievance regarding alleged illegal irregularities\nfollowed by Respondent organization in granting compensation in lieu of\nacquisition of land for plantation of Rubber Trees and seeking clarifications from\nthe CPIO in this regard..Here, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation ofSection 2(f)of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is\nunwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they\nprovide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal\nprovisions under theRTI Act. . For the sake of clarity, the provision ofSection 2(f)of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents,\nmemos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks,\ncontracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic\nform and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a\npublic authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt on the scope and ambit ofSection 2(f)of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs.7Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was\nheld as under:"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about\n   theRTI Act.The RTI Actprovides access to all information that is available and\n   existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information\n   which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also\n   not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to\n   obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to\n   `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' insection 2(f)of the\n   Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public\n   authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide\n   advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and\n   should not be confused with any obligation under theRTI Act." (Emphasis\n   Supplied)\n\nAs far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a\njudgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter ofHansi Rawat and\nAnr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013\nwherein it has been held as under:"6. The proceedings under theRTI Actdo not entail detailed adjudication of\n   the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA\n   No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly\n   pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of theRTI Actis to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question,\n   as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the\n   respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the\n   said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under theRTI Actcannot be\n   converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness\n   of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court in the matter ofGovt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C]\n10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:"6. The CIC has been constituted underSection 12of the Act and the powers of\n   CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act\n   strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the\n   jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."8While, the Apex Court in the matter ofUnion of India vs Namit Sharma (Review\nPetition [C] No.2309of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular\n   information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the\n   Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more\n   parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in\n   possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)\n\nIn case no. CIC/RUBBO/A/2022/654393 -Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission further notes upon scrutiny of\nrecords observes that earlier reply of CPIO at point no. 1 is not in consonance with\nthe submissions tendered during hearing and furthermore, the blanket denial of\ninformation by the CPIO in reference to point no. 2 by invokingSection 8(1)(j)and8(1)(g)of RTI Act ignoring the fact that Appellant was also one of the co-owner of\nland whose land has been acquired for the purpose of planation of rubber trees,\nwas not in the spirit ofRTI Act.In view of the above and in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the CPIO is\ndirected to revisit the contents of RTI Application and provide a revised reply\nintimating the factum of availability/ non-availability of records coupled with\nrelevant information concerning the Appellant only after masking the names and\nidentifying particulars of the other third party officers, if any, which may figure in\nthe noting /comments/ report and cannot be divulged in view ofSection 8(1)(j)of\nRTI Act. In doing so, the CPIO is at liberty to invokeSection 10of the RTI Act for\nredacting the information related to the personal information of third parties, as\nthe said provision states as under:"...10. Severability.--(1) Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that\n      it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then,\n      notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to\n      that part of the record which does not contain any information which is\n      exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed\n      from any part that contains exempt information...."9The information as directed above shall be provided along with a completed copy\nof latest written submission, free of cost to the Appellant by the CPIO after\naccessing the same from the concerned record holder within 15 days from the\ndate of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.In case no. CIC/RUBBO/A/2022/655848 -In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Commission after scrutinizing the\ncontents of RTI Application is of the considered view that the queries raised by\nthe Appellant are based on conjectures which concededly do not conform to\nSection 2(f) of RTI Act per se.Nonetheless, the reply provided by the CPIO is in the spirit ofRTI Act, merits of\nwhich cannot be called into question.Further, the issue raised by the Appellant challenging the veracity of information\nfurnished by the CPIO is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the\nmandate ofRTI Act.However, in pursuance to clause 4 of the hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to\nshare a copy of his latest written submission, free of cost with the Appellant\nwithin 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the\nCommission.The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहा न)\n                                       Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु त)\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अ#भ मा%णत स&या'पत        त)\n\n\n(C.A. Joseph)\nDy. Registrar\n011-26179548/[email protected]सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक\nदनांक /10