Central Information Commission
Gita Dewan Verma vs National Disaster Management ... on 26 December, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/NDMAU/C/2022/662685.
Smt Gita Dewan Verma. शिकायतकताा /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रशतवादीगण /Respondent
National Disaster Management Authority.
Date of Hearing : 23.12.2024
Date of Decision : 23.12.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 02.08.2022
PIO replied on : 06.12.2022
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 28.11.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.08.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"Please provide copies of (1) all NDMA office orders nominating Records Officer in pursuance of section 5(1) of the Public Records Act, 1993, and (2) current Records Retention Schedule for records related to substantive functions of NDMA compiled in terms of section 6(1)[e) of the Public Records Act, 1993. Concerned CPIO Abhishek Biswas ADM"
Aggrieved by non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO within the time limit, the, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
PIO has furnished reply dated 06.12.2022 as under :
Reply: Please refer to your RTI application dated 02.08.2022 seeking information related to office orders regarding nominating Page 1 record office and current record Retention Schedule for records in the office of NDIMA under the RTI Act 2005 In this regard, it is stated that General Section maintain no such record.
Written submission dated 17.12.2024 has been received from the Complainant and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
2. My request was forwarded on 02.08.22 to (and deemed refused by) CPIO (Admin) and 'transferred' on 13.09.22 to (and deemed refused by) CPIO (Gen) and I got no response to my email dt. 20.10.22 to JS(Admin) for the copies. I had cause u/s 18(1)(c). I had cause also u/s 18(1)(f) because the doubly deemed refused status of my request was not reflected on RTI Online and I could not find CIC's procedure for such cases. After NAI CPIO provided a copy of NDMA's letter dt. 13.08.2018 to NAI intimating nomination of Records Officer, I had cause also u/s 18(1)(b). On 23.11.22 I had approached in Complaint u/s 18(1)(b), (c) & (f).
3. On 06.12.22 (126 days after receipt) my request was 'disposed of' on RTI Online by saying, "General Section maintain no such record" (printout enclosed). No appeal was needed, as that was construable as the response for NDMA (sought in my email to JS(Admin)) because RRS and RO are known to all offices of a PA.
4. I have not received copy of any written submission from NDMA. This submission is in support of my prayer in my Complaint dt. 23.11.22. I have made no prayer corresponding to my grounds-A & B u/s 18(1)(b) & (c). My prayer, corresponding to my grounds-C & D u/s 18(1)(f), was:
"I request process as laid down for cases of deemed refusal. I also request enquiry into why refused status of No. NDMAU/R/E/22/00065 is not reflected on RTI Online."
I cannot seek and have not sought u/s 18(1)(f) direction for information or against anyone. I have sought enquiry into an anomaly. I am unaware of any constraint to such enquiry and respectfully submit that enquiry into why first part of my prayer was not allowed and the enquiry sought in second part would serve CIC itself, as:
(a) enquiry into why a case with no decision from the PA (and hardly fit for hearing before the Commission) was kept queued for hearing for 2 years would help to know and remove constraints to remanding such cases to the PA at the threshold, which would (besides serving the right to timely information) help in reducing the Commission's burden of pendency; and
(b) enquiry into how and why RTI Online did not show a request received on 02.08.22 deemed refused u/s 7(2) in September (and showed it disposed of u/s 7(1) in December) would reveal if and how the RTI-MIS counts refusals u/s 7(2) and, as RTI-
MIS is the source of the data that PAs report to CIC, enable Page 2 checking the completeness of the figures being annually reported by the Commission u/s 25(3)(b) of the RTI Act.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent: Mr. Subhash Chand, CPUO/US (RR), Mr. Chandan Singh, US/CPIO, Mitigation Division, Mr. Pawan Kumar, CPIO, Dir (DM-II), Ms. Saroj Kujur, Ms. Sreetama Samanta- participated in the hearing.
The Complainant reiterated the contents of her written submission and stated that this is the case of deemed refusal. She stated that records pertaining to continuous substantive function and fit for permanent preservation should be readily accessible. She requested to initiate enquiry in the instant matter.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information as available in their records was duly provided to the Complainant. They affirmed to provide a revised reply in reference to the information sought by the Complainant.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the records of the case and after hearing the averments of both parties, it is noted that response based on records available with the public authority had been furnished to the Complainant, under the provisions of the RTI Act.
Since the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with these Complaints under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. Records of the case reveal that the Respondent had sent response based on information available on record with them, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter. Furthermore, after examining the facts and records of the case Commission notes that no case of enquiry under Section 18 is made out. 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, 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."
Page 3
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 is of the opinion that information provided by the Respondent was appropriate and neither any case of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent is found in this case. Hence, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is required.
However, it may not be out of place to mention that information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer. As per Section 4 of the RTI Act the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information. Accordingly, the Respondent public authority is advised to place the maximum information related to their organisation on their official website as per the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI in the larger public interest. While proactively disclosing the information mentioned above, due caution should also be exercised by the Respondent to strictly adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act and redact any information which falls under the purview of the Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाशणत सत्याशित प्रशत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. शिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
1. It is recommended to maintain records in digital form for proper management and ease of access in compliance with clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)