Central Information Commission
Tgk Mahadev vs Indian Army on 25 June, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली- 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/IARMY/C/2019/140835
In the matter of:
TGK Mahadev
... Complainant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
RTI Cell, Headquarters,
Southern Command, Pune- 411001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 10/01/2019 CPIO replied on : 13/02/2019 First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Complaint dated : 19/08/2019 Date of Hearing : 24/06/2021 Date of Decision : 24/06/2021 The following were present: Complainant: Not present
Respondent: Col. Sanjay Dutta & CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The Complainant has sought the following information regarding his representation dated 14-09-2018:
1. Provide the status/disposal/action-taken on his said representation.
2. Whether his representation has been forwarded to any other office (such as Principal Director, CEO SCB, Secunderabad) for necessary redressal or information.
Grounds for filing Complaint The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
1Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant was not present to plead his case despite service of hearing notice on 04.06.2021 vide speed post acknowledgment No. ED662356575IN. Moreover, there was no contact number available on the documents filed by the complainant nor the complainant had made any effort to provide the same to the registry for the audio-hearing. Therefore the case was taken up on the basis of merits. In the complaint memo filed by the complainant he had stated that the PIO had refused to provide any reply to him and there was malafide & wilful refusal on his part to provide the desired information. He has prayed that the desired information should be provided to him and he should be adequately compensated.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 13.02.2019. He also reiterated the contents of his written submissions dated 18.06.2021 wherein he has stated that the complainant had filed multiple representations against an occupant of Flat No. 183 and on the basis of his representations an enquiry was conducted by the President, Cantonment Board and it was found that the construction was carried out by a number of other residents on the basis of mutual understanding among the ground and first floor owners. However, in the case of the complainant, he had refused to share the cost of the construction with the ground floor owner and the ground floor owner created a structure with a sloping roof due to which the complainant cannot create any extension over it and this is the reason of the complainant being aggrieved and filing representations to demolish the structure, moreso after having failed to get a favourable judgment from the Court and other Municipal bodies.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that a suitable point- wise & timely reply was given to the complainant on 13.02.2019 whereby for point no. 1, the complainant was informed that the matter is under investigation by President Cantonment Board, Secunderabad and for point no. 2, it was stated that the complainant's representation was forwarded to President Cantonment Board, of Secunderabad Cantt vide this HQ letter dated 06 Oct 2018, followed by a reminder dated 24 Jan 20. The Commission does not find any flaw in the reply of the CPIO as the contention raised by the complainant that no reply was given to him is factually incorrect. Furthermore, it appears that the complainant has not understood the provisions laid down under Section 18 as even though he had filed a complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act, however, he had prayed that the sought for information should be 2 provided to him. Under Section 18 of the RTI Act, no direction for disclosure of the information can be given.
This position has also been held by the Coordinate Bench of Delhi High court in the case of Kripa Shanker v. LD Central Information Commission and Ors. W.P(C) 8315/2017, Para 12 whereof reads as under:
"12. An information seeker can also file a complaint under Section 18 of the Act, in respect of matters set out in clauses (a) to (f) of section 18 (1) of the Act, which includes a case where access to any information has been refused. In terms of Section 18(2) of the Act, if the CIC is satisfied that there is a reasonable ground to enquire into the matter, the CIC may initiate an inquiry with respect thereof. There is no provision in Section 18 of the Act, which enables the CIC to direct disclosure of information. However, the CIC has the power to commence proceedings for imposition of penalty in case of proceedings under Section 19(3) of the Act as is apparent from the plain language of Section 20(1) of the Act."
Adverting to above cited judgment, no direction for disclosure of the information can be given and since a suitable & timely reply was given to the complainant, the complaint is not established.
Decision:
In view of the above, the complaint case is closed being devoid of any merit. However, the CPIO is directed to resend a copy of the reply dated 13.02.2019 to the complainant through speed post within 3 days of the receipt of this order.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3