Heeralal Samariya, Information Commissioner

Information sought:

1. The Complainant sought information:

• CPIO furnished reply, dated 08.04.2021, as under:

• CPIO furnished reply vide letter dated 12/15.04.2021 as under:

• CPIO furnished reply vide letter dated 09.06.2021 as under:

• CPIO furnished reply vide letter dated 12.04.2021 as under:

• Dissatisfied with the information furnished, Complainant filed instant complaint.

• Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 24.04.2023 as under:

• Written submission has been received from the Complainant vide letter 30.04.2023 dated as under:

Grounds for Complaint

2. The PIO has not provided information to the Complainant.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

3. The following were present:-

Complainant: Present

Respondent: 1. Ms. Poonam Didwania, SO, KVS, RO Gurugram

2. Mr. R.K. Dhyani, AO

3. Mr. O.S. Sharma, Asst. Commissioner, CPIO (Fin)

4. Mr. Pravin Kumar, AO, KVS, RO

5. Mr. Sandeep Kr. Srivastav, PPL, KV, Khichripur.

6. Ms. Prachi Dixit, PPL, KVAGCR, Colony

7. Ms. Pawan Sharma, VP, KV, NFC, Vigyan Vihar

8. Mr. R.K. Jain, ASO

9. Mr. B.K. Thapliyal, ASO, KV, AGCR

10. Mr. Harish, ASO, KVS, Delhi

11. Mr. Chetandas, KV Vigyan Vihar

12. Pravin Kumar Mallik, KV, Gole Market, New Delhi.

4. Written submission received from the Appellant has been taken on record perusal.

5. Written submission received from the Respondent has been taken on record for perusal.

6. The Complainant submitted that the requisite information has not been furnished till date. He further stated that the Respondent be directed to furnish the information as sought.

7. The Respondent submitted that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Complainant within stipulated time frame. He further submitted that he would abide by the order of the Commission if any.

Decision:

8. At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submissions along with annexures if any, to the Complainant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.

9. Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO within the prescribed time limit of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no mala fide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.

10. Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s. 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-

"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."

xxx

"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."

31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."

xxx

"37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."

11. Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in these complaints' u/s. 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.

12. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no mala fide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 20 of the Act.

13. No further action lies.

The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.