Central Information Commission
Narinder Kumar Gupta vs Home Department Ut Of J & K on 25 October, 2024
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/HMDJK/C/2023/637936
Shri Narinder Kumar Gupta निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Home Department UT of J & K ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.10.2024
Date of Decision : 23.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 27.06.2023
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : - -
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 04.08.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.06.2023 seeking information on following points about an FIR no. 28/2022 filed by the Complainant:-
1) "Periodical progress report of the investigation in respect of the above-said FIR.
2) Name, Designation, Badge Number, and contact no. of the Investigating Officer(s) entrusted with the case investigation concerning the above-said FIR.
3) A Copy of the Case diary indicating the name of the persons arrested in connection with the said FIR.
4) A Certified Copy of the investigation report as prepared by Investigating Officer in respect of the said FIR.
5) Please supply a copy of the statement of all the accused recorded during the course of investigation.
6) A copy of Letter No. 33/PP SMGS 5-1 (Dt.28-05-2022), 34/PP SMGS 5-1 (Dt. 30-05-2022), 36/PP SMGS 5-1 (Dt. 10-06-2022).
7) A copy of the demarcation report, Status report Of Shop, and FSL Report sent by Executive Magistrate Jammu Khas, Commissioner of JMC And FSL Jammu respectively."Page 1 of 3
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:
Written submission dated 07.10.2024 has been received from the CPIO, Home Department stating that instant RTI Application was filed with PIO, Office of Station House Officer, Police Station, City Jammu and not before the CPIO, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. Hence the matter was forwarded to PIO, SHO, PS City Jammu vide communication dated 07.10.2024.
Written submission dated 15.10.2024 has been received from the Complainant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Sidharth Dhiman - CPIO/Dy. Secy, Home Department and Shri Devender Singh - SDPO, City were present for hearing through video conference.
The Respondent-SDPO present during hearing stated that relevant information with respect to the FIR no. 28/2022 had been duly sent to the Complainant, from existing records, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. Complainant present during hearing did not oppose the Respondent's contention.
Decision:
Upon examining the facts of the case, it is noted that queries raised by the Complainant have been sent by the Respondent on the basis of available records, in terms of the RTI Act.
Since the Complainant has chosen to file this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which must be adjudicated in this case is whether there was any willful concealment of information. From the records of the case at hand and averments of the Respondent, it appears that the Respondent has sent information available on records thereby negating any attempt at deliberate suppression of information. Considering the fact that the information furnished by the Respondent is in consonance with the terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and did not suffer from any legal infirmity therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case. The Complainant has also not opposed the Respondent's contention.
In this factual background, it is worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, Page 2 of 3 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."
In the given circumstances, the Commission finds that in the absence of any wilful or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent, no further action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case.
The case is disposed off as such.
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 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)