Central Information CommissionVarun Krishna vs Department Of Economic Affairs on 12 April, 2021Author:Neeraj Kumar GuptaBench:Neeraj Kumar Guptaके   ीय सूचना आयोग\n                        Central Information Commission\n                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका\n                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                        नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067\n\nिशकायत सं या/Complaint No. CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/646298\n\nMr. Varun Krishna                                   ...िशकायतकता/Complainant\n                                   VERSUS\n                                    बनाम\nCPIO                                                     ... ितवादी /Respondent\nDepartment of Economic Affairs\nNew Delhi\n\nRelevant dates emerging from the complaint:-\n\nRTI : 17-06-2019           FA    : Not on Record      Complaint: 25-07-2019\nCPIO : 25-07-2019 & 05-\n                           FAO : Not on Record        Hearing: 08-04-2021\n04-2021\n\n                                  ORDER1.    The complainant filed an application under theRight to Information Act,\n2005(RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department\nof Economic Affairs, New Delhi seeking following information:-"a) Subject matter of information: Pertaining to First Appeals\n      received by FAA-Department of Economic Affairs, Shri Manmohan\n      Sachdeva on 8.5.19.b) The period to which information relates: 8.5.19 to Current Date.c) Description of Information required: Please provide certified\n      copies of following information:1. Total number of First appeals received on 8.5.19.2. Total number of appeals from Sno 1 which are not disposed till\n      current date.3. Grounds available in records along with Name and designation of\n      the official accountable for each at Sno 2."2.    The CPIO responded on 25-07-2019 & 05-04-2021. Thereafter, the\ncomplainant filed a complaint u/Section 18of the RTI Act before the CommissionPage 1 of 5requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20of the\nRTI Act, 2005.Hearing:3.     The complainant, Mr. Varun Krishna attended the hearing through audio\nconferencing. Smt. Jessie Jacob, Under Secy./CPIO could not attend the hearing\ndue to health issues and therefore, the matter is being adjudicated based on the\nwritten submissions and arguments advanced by the complainant. The written\nsubmissions are taken on record.4.     The complainant stated that the then CPIO, Mr. Dalip Singh has furnished a\ncyclostyled reply after a considerable delay thereby quoting Para 9 of DOP&T OM\nNo. 1/4/2008-IR dated 25.04.2008 wherein it is mentioned that only such\ninformation is required to be supplied under theRTI Act, 2005which already\nexists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public\nauthority. Therefore, an appropriate action should be initiated against the CPIO\nu/Section 20of the RTI Act, 2005 for obstructing the flow of information.5.     Vide written submissions dated 05-04-2021, Smt. Jessie Jacob, Under\nSecy./CPIO has furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant thereby indicating\nthe total no. of first appeals including designation of the then FAA, Shri\nManmohan Sachdeva.Decision:6.     This Commission observes that Mr. Dalip Singh, Under Secretary, the then\nCPIO should have consulted the office of the first appellate authority specifically\nwhen the matter pertained to this office. But he did not bother to seek assistance\nfrom this office and has in turn given a cyclostyled reply to the complainant\nwithout applying his mind thereby simply referring to Para 9 of DOP&T OM No.\n1/4/2008-IR dated 25.04.2008. He has failed to factor the queries raised by the\ncomplainant. Therefore, Mr. Dalip Singh, Under Secretary, the then CPIO is\nhereby issued a very strict warning to be more meticulous in future and not to\ncontravene the provisions of theRTI Act, 2005.7.     Since the then CPIO has given a reply to the complainant as per his\nunderstanding, no malafide is observed on the part of the then CPIO. The\ncomplainant has pressed for imposition of penalty on the then CPIO, therefore,\nwith regard to the situations governing imposition of penalty on the CPIO underSection 20of the RTI Act, 2005, this Commission refers to the decision dated 01-\n06-2012 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 titled asPage 2 of 5Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr., wherein,\nit was held as under:-"61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that\n         the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner\n         in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged\n         to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the\n         querist by resort toSection 610of the Companies Act, it could not\n         be said that the information had been withheld malafide or\n         deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the\n         PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold\n         the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be\n         provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC\n         eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it\n         cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice underSection 20of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The\n         legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides\n         or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable\n         cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the\n         information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or\n         misleading information or destroys the information, that the\n         personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly\n         not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs\n         in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a\n         sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the\n         public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They\n         would not be able to fulfill their statutory duties under theRTI Actwith an independent mind and with objectivity. Such\n         consequences would not auger well for the future development\n         and growth of the regime that theRTI Actseeks to bring in, and\n         may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs\n         Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to\n         unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created\n         by theRTI Actin disrepute."Similarly, the following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court inBhagat\nSingh v. CIC & Ors., WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:-"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in\n          releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the\n          orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate\n          Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the\n          nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly\n          show the lackadaisical approach of the second and thirdPage 3 of 5respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the\n          Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely\n          denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the\n          Central Information Commission to initiate action underSection\n          20of the Act, cannot be issued."Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the decision of Col.Rajendra\nSingh v. Central Information Commission and Anr., WP (C) 5469 of 2008\ndated 20-03-2009 has held as under:-"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and\n         direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted.\n         Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was\n         without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.\n         ...The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of\n         this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information\n         was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an\n         inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably\n         withholding it."8.    In light of the factual matrix of the instant complaint and the legal principles\nenunciated in the aforementioned case-laws, this Commission comes to the\nconclusion that no further action underSection 20of the RTI Act, 2005 is\nwarranted in this case.9.    This Commission further observes that while examining the complaint\nunderSection 18of the RTI Act, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of\nany information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court of India inChief Information Commissioner and Another v.\nState of Manipur and Anr.in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-\n12-2011. The relevant extract ofthe said decisionis set down below:-"30. It has been contended before us by the respondent that\n            underSection 18of the Act the Central Information\n            Commission or the State Information Commission has no\n            power to provide access to the information which has been\n            requested for by any person but which has been denied to\n            him. The only order which can be passed by the Central\n            Information Commission or the State Information\n            Commission, as the case may be, underSection 18is an\n            order of penalty provided underSection 20.However, before such order is passed the Commissioner\n            must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information\n            Officer was not bona fide.Page 4 of 531. We uphold the said contention and do not find any\n            error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby\n            it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a\n            complaint underSection 18of the said Act has no\n            jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the\n            information."10. However, the present CPIO has furnished a point-wise reply to the\ncomplainant thereby indicating the total no. of first appeals including designation\nof the then FAA, Shri Manmohan Sachdeva. Hence, no further intervention of the\nCommission is required in the matter.11. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.नीरज कु मार गु ा)\n                                         Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज             ा\n                                       Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु )\n                                                      दनांक / Date : 08-04-2021\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अिभ मािणत स यािपत  ित)\n\nS. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),\nDy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),\n(011-26105682)\n\nAddresses of the parties:\n\n1.    CPIO\n      M/o. Finance\n      Department of Economic Affairs\n      North Block, New Delhi-110001\n\n2.    Mr. Varun KrishnaPage 5 of 5