Central Information CommissionPrakash Chand vs Indian Council Of Historical Research ... on 18 May, 2023Author:Heeralal SamariyaBench:Heeralal Samariyaके न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग\n                       Central Information Commission\n                           बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका\n                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                        नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067\n\n शिकायत संख्या/Complaint No.:       CIC/ICOHR/C/2022/611702\n\n Prakash Chand                                          ...शिकायतकताा/Complainant\n\n                                    VERSUS/बनाम\n\n Public Information Officer Under RTI,\n Section Officer-(Admin./RTI), Indian Council of Historical\n Research (Ministry of Education), 35 -Ferozeshah Road,\n New Delhi-110001.\n\n\n                                                    ...प्रशतवािीगण/Respondents\n\nRelevant facts emerging from Complaint:\n\n  RTI application filed on          :   29.01.2022\n  CPIO replied on                   :   17.02.2022\n  First appeal filed on             :   Not on record\n  First Appellate Authority order   :   Not on record\n  Complaint received at CIC         :   24.02.2022\n  Date of Hearing                   :   18.05.2023\n  Date of Decision                  :   18.05.2023\n\n                   सूचना आयुक्त    : श्री हीरालाल सामररया\n             Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya\n\n\n  Information sought:The Complainant sought following information:Page 1 of 5• CPIO furnished reply, dated 16.02.2022, as under:• Dissatisfied with the information furnished, Complainant filed instant\n      complaint.• Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated\n      10.05.2023, as under :Grounds for Complaint\nThe PIO has not provided information to the Complainant.Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:The following were present: -Complainant: PresentPage 2 of 5Respondent: 1. Mr. Dharmendra Singh, Dy. Director (Admin)2. Mr. Sachin Kr. Jha, SO (Admin)\n\nThe Complainant submitted that the requisite information has not been furnished\ntill date. He further stated that the Respondent be directed to furnish the\ninformation as sought.The Respondent submitted that the relevant information has been duly provided\nto the Complainant within stipulated time frame. He further submitted that he\nwould abide by the order of the Commission if any.Decision:At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their\nwritten submission along with annexures if any, dated 10.05.2023, to the\nComplainant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the\ndate of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the\nCommission.Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings\nduring hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the\nComplainant by the CPIO within the prescribed time limit of theRTI Act, 2005.\nTherefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO\nand thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.Further the complainant has preferred complaintu/s 18of the RTI Act and if the\ncomplainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the\nComplainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The\nCommission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be\ndisclosed undersection 18of the RTI Act.In view of the foregoing, this\nCommission now refers toSection 18of the RTI Act while examining the\ncomplaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court of India inChief Information Commissioner and\nAnother v. State of Manipur and Anr.in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of\n2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract ofthe said decisionis set down\nbelow:-"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the\n jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner underSection 18in\n directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division\n Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted\n beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007\n and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that underSection 18ofPage 3 of 5the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a\n direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought\n for by the complainant."xxx\n\n       "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that\n underSection 18of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State\n Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information\n which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him.\n The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or\n the State Information Commission, as the case may be, underSection 18is an\n order of penalty provided underSection 20. However, before such order is\n passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information\n Officer was not bona fide."31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the\n impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the\n Commissioner while entertaining a complaint underSection 18of the said Act\n has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.""37. We are of the view thatSections 18and19of the Act serve two\n different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two\n different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaintsu/s 18of RTI Act is\nwhether the information was denied intentionally.In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is\nno malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence\nno action is warranted undersection 20of the Act. No further action lies.The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया)\n                                       Information Commissioner (सच      ु )\n                                                                  ू ना आयक्तPage 4 of 5Authenticated true copy.\n(अनिप्रमानितसत्यानितप्रनत)\n\n\n\nRam Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाि ग्रोवर)\nDy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)\n011-26180514Page 5 of 5