1. Information sought:

2. The Complainant sought information:

• FAA, vide order dated 18.12.2019, as under:

• PIO, O/o. E.E. (P), CC-14, furnished reply, vide letter dated 23.10.2019, as under:

• Written submission has been received from Complainant, vide letter dated 20.02.2022, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record.
• Written submission has been received from PIO, AVO-12, vide letter dated 28.02.2022, as under:

• Written submission has been received from Complainant, vide letter dated 02.03.2022, for perusal before the Commission and taken on record.

3. Grounds for Complaint:

4. The PIO has not provided correct information to the Complainant.

5. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

6. Complainant: Present

7. Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Kumar, PIO, O/o. E.E (HQ), present.

8. Complainant submitted his written submission, dated 02.03.2022, for perusal before the Commission and duly taken on record.

9. Upon Commission’s instance, Complainant stated that relevant information has not been furnished to him in the instant matter. He further requested the Commission that complete set of information be furnished to him, as sought in instant RTI Application, and action be taken against erring PIO for providing misleading information.

10. Commission rejects the request of the Complainant, vide his submission dated 02.03.2022, to convert his instant Complaint to Second Appeal.

11. Decision:

12. Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of submission of both the parties during the course of hearing observes that prima facie no reply was provided to the Complainant by then PIO, O/o. AD (SA&GR), DDA. Therefore, Commission expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the then PIO in having not provided any reply on the instant RTI Application, thereby, violating the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Now, Commission was unable to procure the name of the then PIO, therefore Commission directs then PIO, O/o. AD (SA&GR), DDA through the Nodal PIO to send his/her written submissions to justify as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the gross violation of its provisions. In doing so, if any other persons are also responsible for the omission, the then PIO shall serve a copy of this order on such other persons under intimation to the Commission and ensure that written submissions of all such concerned persons are sent to the Commission. The said written submission of then PIO along with submissions of other concerned persons, if any, should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

13. The Nodal PIO will ensure service of this order to then PIO, O/o. AD (SA&GR), DDA.

14. Furthermore, Complainant, vide his submission dated 02.03.2022, submitted that there has been delay in transferring the instant RTI Application by the concerned PIO, AVO-12, DDA. Therefore, Commission expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the PIO in violating the time frame stipulated under the RTI to transfer the instant RTI Application. Commission warns the PIO to remain extremely careful in future and acquaint himself well with the RTI Act, 2005 so that such lapses do not recur. However, in light of submissions made by PIO, AVO-12, DDA, 28.02.2022, Commission warrants no further action in absence of malafide intention of the concerned PIO.

15. Now, Commission takes into consideration the averment of the Complainant regarding non-provision of information to him with regards to instant RTI Application, however, no relief can be ordered in the matter in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2011 in Central Information Commissioner vs. State of Manipur wherein it was held as under:

"...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 thethe 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 thethe 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 theserve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other....”

16. The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.