Central Information Commission
Rajesh Suri vs Ministry Of Electronics & Information ... on 8 May, 2025
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
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOEIT/C/2024/607999.
Shri. Rajesh Suri. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry Of Electronics & Information
Technology.
Date of Hearing : 06.05.2025
Date of Decision : 06.05.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.09.2023
PIO replied on : 02.11.2023
First Appeal filed on : 10.11.2023
First Appellate Order on : 28.11.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 26.02.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.09.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Certified copies of records including noting and material relied upon/ placed in correspondence side leading to issuance of communication no. 4(1185)/2021-Pers. I dated 12.7.2023 bearing the subject matter "Returning the Application for LTC Advance-reg to Shri Rajesh Suri, Legal Officer, Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (ICERT) a statutory body established u/s 708 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 under the signature of Shri Lalit Narain Mathur, Section Officer, Personnel -1, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology(Meity).
2. The certified copy of the office order or any other official document depicting that Shri Shobendra Bahadur, Director (Pers.) of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology is the competent authority for deciding or taking decision in respect of the request of Shri Rajesh Suri, Legal Officer, ICERT, a statutory body, an officer in the Pay Level-13 seeking LTC advance for availing Home Town LTC for the Block Year 2022-23.
3. The certified copy of the office order or any other official document(s) depicting that Shri Shobendra Bahadur, Director (Pers.), which is pay level-13 post, of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology is Page 1 the competent authority or has been delegated powers or authority by Director General, ICERT for deciding or taking decision in respect of the request of Shri Rajesh Suri, Legal Officer, ICERT(a statutory body) an officer in the Pay Level -13 seeking LTC advance for availing Home Town LTC for the Block Year 2022-23
4. The certified copy of the official record wherein Shri Rajesh Suri, Legal Officer, ICERT has given the declaration of Home Town depicting Home Town as "New Delhi on joining the post of Legal Officer in ICERT(the statutory Body) on 2 July 2021.
Etc."
The CPIO, Deputy Secretary (Pers.) vide letter dated 02.11.2023 replied as under:-
"i. W.r.t. point no 1-2 & 13-17, the relevant information/documents are enclosed herewith.
ii. W.r.t. point no 4-7 & 19, the information in this regard may be treated as NIL.
W.r.t. point no 8, records in this regard is not readily available. iv. W.r.t. point no 3 & 9-10, the matter is transferred to CPIO (ICERT) for providing the requisite information.
V. W.r.t. point no 11-12, the requisite information is not available. vi. W.r.t. point 18, the matter is transferred to CPIO (DOPT) for providing the requisite information."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.11.2023. The FAA, Director (Pers.) vide order dated 28.11.2023 stated as under :-
"Point No.1: The RTI Application dated 29.9.2023 was replied vide Letter dated 2.11.2023, Hence, there was a delay in responding by 4 days which is sincerely regretted.
Point No. 2: Information available with Personnel-1 Section viz. Communication No. M-11019/1/2020-MS(O&M) dated 23.7.2021 was provided to the applicant. However, the File containing Office Order dated 13.11.2014 referred to by the applicant is not readily available with the Section.
Point No. 3: The applicant has sought copy of document delegating powers BY DG(ICERT). Hence, this part of the RTI application was transferred to CPIO, ICERT for necessary action. However, the delay in transferring this part of the RTI Application to ICERT within the stipulated time period is sincerely regretted. Point No. 4: The information sought is not readily available with the Personnel-I Section.
Point No. 5: This part of the RTI application (Point Nos. 9&10) has been transferred to CPIO, ICERT for necessary action. However, the delay in transferring this part of the RTI Application to ICERT within the stipulated time period is sincerely regretted. Veases Point No. 6: Copies of Orders relating to 'Delegation of Powers' and 'Channel of Submission of cases and level of final disposal' being followed in Meity may be provided to the applicant.
Page 2 Point No. 7: As desired by the applicant, a copy of Form for Generating Employee Code may be provided to the applicant. Etc."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present Respondent: Shri P. Victor Albuqueraue, Deputy Secretary The Submissions were heard.
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 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 Page 3 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.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) 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)