Central Information Commission
Sourendra Nath Dutt vs Ministry Of Culture on 18 February, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदि ल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/MCULT/C/2024/149119
Shri Sourendra Nath Dutt निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Culture
Date of Hearing : 13.02.2025
Date of Decision : 13.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 31.07.2023
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : - -
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 10.12.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.07.2023 seeking information on following points:-
(a). "Will you be kind enough to furnish me, the step/ steps taken by your Officer-In-
Charge by the respected Department, status in detail regarding my complaint sent through an e-mail, in PDF format treated as Complaint dated 21th. July. 2023 at 12.44PM through gmail and received the same.
(b). Diarytised No:
(c). latest Status of the said matter."
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present Respondent: Dr Akshat Kumar Kaushik, Asst. Supt. Archaeologist (Mon) The CPIO vide written submission dated 10.1.2025 submitted before the Commission that complaint dated 20.06.2023 was forwarded by the Ministry of Culture along with RTI of Shri Sourendra Nath Dutt wherein he wanted Page 1 that his property No.171/A & B at Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata to be declared as Heritage Property by MoC / Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
After going through the matter, it was observed that the Heritage Structure under discussion does not fit to be declared as Centrally Protected Monument (CPM) under the provisions of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (AMASR) 1958. The same has been communicated to Shri Sourendra Nath Dutt vide letter dated 14.08.2023 and it is being advised him to approach the local State Authorities in the matter.
The then CPIO, ASI Monument Section, HQ, New Delhi on 14.08.2023 had provided the available information of RTI application dated 23.06.2023 to the Appellant. Afterwards no further communication was received from the Complainant.
It is pertinent to mention here that as per Section 4(1) of the AMASR Act, 1958 - Power of Central Government to declare ancient monument, etc., to be of national importance -(1) Where the Central Government is of opinion that any ancient monument or archaeological site and remains not included in section 3 is of national importance, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, give two months' notice of its intention to declare such ancient monument or archaeological site and remains to be of national importance; and a copy of every such notification shall be affixed in a conspicuous place near the monument or site and remains, as the case may be. 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 Page 2 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."
xxx "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 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 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.
Page 3 The Complaint is disposed of accordingly Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) 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)