Central Information Commission
Sukesh Agarwal vs Dg, Doordarshan on 22 March, 2021
CIC/DGDOR/C/2019/603018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/DGDOR/C/2019/603018
In the matter of:
Sukesh Agarwal ... िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Assistant Director of Programme,
Prasar Bharati, Doordarshan Kendra,
Doordarshan Bhawan, Kolkata.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI Application filed on : 20.11.2018
CPIO replied on : 20.12.2018
First Appeal filed on : 26.12.2018
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Complaint Received on : 15.02.2019
Date of Hearing : 19.03.2021
The following were present:
Complainant: Shri Sukesh Agarwal participated in the hearing through video
conferencing from NIC Kolkata.
Respondent: Absent (despite being served the hearing notice).
Page 1 of 5
CIC/DGDOR/C/2019/603018
ORDER
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI Application dated 20.11.2018 seeking information as under:Page 2 of 5
CIC/DGDOR/C/2019/603018 The CPIO vide letter dated 20.12.2018 informed the Complainant as under:
"This is to clarify that DD Bangla schedules Bengali feature film as per the requirement of the channel maintaining several criteria and availability of budget. The process of grading of any film fixes the royalty amount involved for fresh/repeat telecast of the film only. Grading of any film in no way ensures the telecast of the film."
Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 26.12.2018, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Grounds for Complaint:
The Complainant filed a complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing: The Complainant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent.
The Respondent did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Complainant in the instant RTI Application is seeking reason for inordinate delay for non-scheduling and non- telecasting of Bengali film 'Dahan' through DD1. Therefore, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is beyond the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In addition, the Complainant has approached the Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act. In this regard, Page 3 of 5 CIC/DGDOR/C/2019/603018 the Commission relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2011 in Central Information Commissioner vs. State of Manipur wherein it was held as under:
"...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 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...."
Notwithstanding the above, the Commission takes grave exception to the absence of the CPIO during hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. Accordingly, CPIO is directed to provide explanation for non-appearance before the Commission within 15 days from the date of issue of this order.
Page 4 of 5CIC/DGDOR/C/2019/603018 With the above observations, the instant Complaint is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Complaint, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 19.03.2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) O/o the Addl. Director General P & A, East Zone, Doordarshan Kendra, Doordarshan Bhawan,18/3 Uday Shankar Sarani, Golf Green, Kolkata 700095
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Assistant Director of Programme, Prasar Bharati, Indian's Public Service Broadcaster, Doordarshan Kendra:
Kolkata Doordarshan Bhawan, 18/3 Uday Shankar Sarani, Golf Green, Kolkata 700095
3. Shri Sukesh Agarwal Page 5 of 5