Central Information Commission
Sharan Singh Khati vs Food Corporation Of India on 14 July, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/FCIND/C/2024/617060.
Shri Sharan Singh Khati. निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO
Food Corporation of India. ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.07.2025
Date of Decision : 10.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 25.07.2023
PIO replied on : 02.05.2024
First Appeal filed on : 21.11.2023
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 25.04.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 25.07.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Copy of the regulation of 22(2) of FCI, Staff Regulation.
2. Provide the copy of vigilance profile of Sh Sharan Singh Khati, Ex Manager(QC) (DOB- under which the department have premature retired me under regulation 22(2 of FCI (Staff) regulation.
3. Copy of the committee order consititued by the FCI.
4. Copy of the recommendation of committee under the basis, FCI have premature retired (CRS) me.
5. Copy of FCI/DOPT Circular under which regulation 22(2) was invoked against me.
6. Copy of the Speaking order of CA/ED (North)."
Aggrieved by non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO within the time limit, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 21.11.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA.
PIO has furnished reply dated 02.05.2024 as under:
Page 1 "..Kindly refer to second Appeal/Complaint bearing No CIC/FCIND/C/2024/617060 of Sh. Sharan Singh Khati which is regarding non-receipt of reply wrt to his RTI Appeal dated 21.11.2023. In this connection, it is submitted that this Office has neither received RTI dated 25.07.2023 nor the First Appeal dated 21.11.2023 iro. of Sh. Sharan Singh Khati. However the information is provided here with.
On examination of records, the information/status pertaining to the RTI Application and Appeals related to the above mentioned notice is furnished as shown below.
1. Copy of Circular No. EP-01-2021-24 dated 09.07.2022 is enclosed.
2. Copy enclosed.
3. Question is not clear.
4. Copy of relevant pages extract of Review Committee report dated 18.07.2023 containing information related to you is enclosed.
5. Copy of FCI Hqrs. Circular No. EP-01-2021-24 dated 09.07.2022 and DOPT OM dated 28.08.2020 are enclosed.
6. Question is not clear..."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 04.07.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..कृ पया उपरोक्त नवषयक आपके दिनांक 13.06.2025 के नोटिस संख्या CIC/FCIND/C/2024/617060 का संिर्ग ग्रहण करें । इस सम्बन्द्ध में यह अवगत कराना है दक श्री िरण ससंह खाती की नितीय अपील संख्या CIC/FCIND/C/2024/617060 दिनांक 23.04.2025 िारा मांगी गयी सूचना इस कायागलय के समसंख्यक पत्र दिनांक 02.05.2024 (प्रनत संलग्न) िारा आपके कायागलय को (आवेिक / अपीलकताग को प्रनत पृष्ांदकत करते हुए) प्रेनषत की गई थी। साथ ही CIC पोिगल पर डायरी संख्या 618470 के साथ अपलोड कर िी गयी थी। उपरोक्त दिनांक 02.05.2024 के पत्र की प्रनत श्री िरण ससंह खाती के ई-मेल ([email protected]) पर र्ी दिनांक 02.05.2024 (प्रेनषत ईमेल प्रनत संलग्न) को र्ी र्ेजी जा चुकी है।
उपरोक्त कृ त कायगवाही आपके दिनांक 13.06.2025 के नोटिस के अनुपालन में सूचनाथग प्रस्तुत.."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Page 2 Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, DGM (pers)- participated in the hearing, The Respondent stated that the relevant information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Complainant. He further stated that the copy of relevant pages extract of Review Committee report dated 18.07.2023 containing information related to the Complainant has been duly supplied to the RTI Applicant.
Decision:
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 as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
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."
"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 Page 3 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..
"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...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामटरया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचिकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)