Central Information Commission
Vijay Dhaker vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India on 11 February, 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/NPCOI/A/2024/641260.
CIC/NPCOI/C/2024/641263.
Shri. Vijay Dhaker. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Nuclear Power Corporation of India.
Date of Hearing : 03.02.2025
Date of Decision : 03.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.07.2024
PIO replied on : 08.08.2024
First Appeal filed on : 08.08.2024
First Appellate Order on : 10.09.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 18.09.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.07.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"Kindly provide me following details wirt. ICC, Rawatbhata Rajasthan Site 11 Number of complaint received by the internal Complaints Committee (ICC) since 2013.
2) Number of complaints rejected by the ICC since 2013.
3) Number of complaints admitted by the ICC since 2013.
4) After investigation, number of complaints upheld by the ICC
5) Number of complaints found malicious by the ICC since 2013. AND
1) Number of complaints pending disposal with ICC, RR Site as on today.
Kindly note these information are not barned from disclosure under any Act and should be distinsed. Therefore kindly do not take lame excuse of Section-1 of the POSH Act-2013 or Section-8(1)(h) of the RTI Act- 2005."
The CPIO, NPCIL, Rawatbhata vide letter dated 08.08.2024 replied as under:-
Page 1 "Nodal agency informed that "as per section 16 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 information is exempted from discloser." Kindly acknowledge the receipt."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.08.2024. The FAA vide order dated 10.09.2024 which was upheld by the FAA.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri Sanmati S. Mudholkar ,Sr.Mgr , Shri Debashish Giri, SR.Mgr (HR), Shri Surender Kumar Telange, Mgr (OL) The CPIO vide written submission stated that appellant in his RTI sought information about the complaints from 2013 received by ICC RR Site and other information related to the said complaints. Said information is not available in a compiled form, voluminous in nature so NPCIL has to divert the resources to provide the information to the appellant. Therefore, the information sought cannot be provided under Section-7(9) of the RTI Act.
Further, Appellant asking personal information and also wants to redress his grievances which cannot be challenged under the provision of RTI Act. Appellant wants to get redressal of his grievance through RTI, therefore the response given is valid. The reply given in RTI is in line to Section-7(9) of RTI Act along with Section-16 of the POSH Act.
It is to submit that a disciplinary inquiry against present appellant based on a complaint filed by victim under POSH Act is pending and also a litigation filed by present appellant related to said complaint is sub-judice before Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur vide SBCWP No. 16594/2023 and appellant to redress his grievance against the pending disciplinary inquiry continuously filling several RTI applications before the Authority i.e. NPCIL. NPCIL provided reply to all the applications within the purview of RTI Act.
In the present matter appellant from 2020 to 2024 had filed total 322 RTI applications and appeals seeking multiple information and, on several occasions, similar and same information based on the pending disciplinary inquiry against him.
Considering the above submissions and there is no public interest involved in disclosing the information to the applicant, the allegation of non-providing the information and providing misleading and incorrect information is not correct. Further, the information which is voluminous in nature and NPCIL has to divert the resources to provide the information to the appellant. Therefore, the information sought cannot be provided under Section-7(9) of the RTI Act.
Page 2 Decision:
CIC/NPCOI/A/2024/641260.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Appellant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. No further action lies. The Appeal stands disposed off.
CIC/NPCOI/C/2024/641263.
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 Page 3 Page 3 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."
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)