Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 29 January, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/MHOME/C/2024/623208
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Home Affairs
Date of Hearing : 24.01.2025
Date of Decision : 24.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 13.04.2024
PIO replied on : 05.04.2024
First Appeal filed on : 12.04.2024
First Appellate Order on : 25.04.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 03.06.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.04.2024 seeking information on following points:-
It is a database of all Central enactments which are in force and their subordinate legislations made from time to time. With the help of this system, retrieving of any Central Act and its relevant subordinate legislations of ones interest in an up-to-date form has been simplified and made extremely user-friendly and accessible at push of few buttons.
Supply complete details with all copies of communications, present status, applicable in India, related to:
1. Protection of Human Rights Act, 1882, passed by the Parliament, now applicable to India, confirmation required because a large number of societies are being cheated, being impersonating, for gain and profit with bad intention.
2. World Human Rights Protection Commission, established by an Act of Parliament, under Protection of Human Rights Act, 1882. Legal status in India, as claimed in public domain, to cheat public for profit, abusing system, Delhi Police officials are silent being a party, concealing truth before court of law, their senior officers.
IT Act, many sections of IPCs being criminal conspiracy.
Page 1 Cybercrime in public domain, concerned authorities ale in deep sleep, as top officials take active role, in their fraud. MR. TAPAN KUMAR RAUTARAY, World Human Right Protection Commission at 201-202, Best Business Park, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi, along MRS.
RITANJALI RAUTARAY, along with Mr. Anjani Kumar, their role needs immediate attention being Mastermind of this syndicate. World Human Rights Protection Commission, House No. 254, Kohat Enclave Pitampura, Delhi 110034.
Supply copies of complaint with action taken reports, being above said claims are live at:
their official website: whrpc.org/about-us/ Community Policing being whistleblowing for justice."
The Dy. Secretary (N/HR) & CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi vide letter dated 05.04.2024 replied as under:-
"2. With reference to point no. 1 of your RTI application, PHR Act 1993 is available in public domain at https://nhrc.nic.in/acts-&- rules/protection-human-rights-act- 1993. With reference to point no. 2 of your RTI application, no such information is available with the undersigned CPIO."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 12.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 25.04.2024 stated as under:-
"04. Section 10 of RTI Act, 2005 as well as guidelines issued by DOPT, inter alia stated that only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
05 As such, the appellant has not stated any grounds for filing this appeal and has just repeated the contents of his RTI application. Therefore, the Appeal is found to be devoid of merit. Accordingly, the First Appeal is hereby disposed of in the above terms."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 14.01.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Page 2 Complainant: Not present Respondent: Ms. Vandana Chaudhary, Deputy Secretary and Mr. V Ganesh Kumar, US- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Complainant.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed- post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
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 Page 3 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."
"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 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)