Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs High Court Of Delhi on 7 April, 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
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/DSLSA/C/2024/618496/HCDEL
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Delhi State Legal Services Authority ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.04.2025
Date of Decision : 03.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07.03.2024
PIO replied on : 09.03.2024
First Appeal filed on : 16.03.2024
First Appellate Order on : 22.03.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 03.05.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.03.2024 before the National Legal Services Authority seeking information on the following points:-
"Insult of State Emblem of India, by the North West District Legal Services Authority, read with the Advisory related to the display of complete State Emblem of India with the motto Satyameva Jayate -Truth alone triumphs-written in Devanagari script the profile of the Lion Capital of Asoka. Reference:
State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005, read with the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007 and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, besides the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper use) Act 1950.
It is humbly submitted, that:
1. State Emblem of India, insulted as above, in the premises of Rohini Court.
2. Prosecution sanctions required, before any legal action. Prayers:
1. Necessary permission may be granted to take strict legal action, against all offenders, top to bottom, preventing misuse of public funds.
2. Remove all objectionable Emblem, amending above said State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005, being toothless and ineffective legislation. Community Policing as scouting against insult of State Emblem of India:Page 1 of 3
Delhi State Legal Services Authority erstwhile Delhi Legal Aid & Advice Board has been constituted by an Act of Parliament passed under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 as amended by Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act, 2002, to provide free and competent legal service to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and to organize Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity.
NORTHWEST DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY Room NO. 405, 4th FLOOR, ROHINI COURT COMPLEX DELHI-110085, insulting State Emblem of India, and they are again and again committing crime against National pride, which is not acceptable to me being senior citizen.
Supply copy of logo used without devnagiri words - Satyamev Jayete, and logo on the inauguration Board, along with objectionable logo placed on wall, and concerned file noting, amount incurred from public funds, as well. Supply all copies of complaints received along with action taken reports, since last 5 years, till date.
Supply complete details of Community Policing along with Whistleblower legislation.
Complete details and copies of orders passed and their strict compliance, along with action taken on the offenders, including holding position on administrative sides, office bearers of the DSLA at Rohini.
Supply action taken reports, on the complaint lodged on PG Portals, LG Listening Post and Delhi Public grievance portal.
Copy of complaint attached as ready reference."
The CPIO, National Legal Services Authority, Jaisalmer House 26, Man Singh Road, New Delhi-110011 vide letter dated 09.03.2024 transferred the RTI application to the Public Information Officer Delhi State Legal Services Authority, 3rd Floor, Rouse Avenue District Court Complex, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi- 110002 under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for providing information directly to the Complainant.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 16.03.2024. The Section Officer, National Legal Services Authority, Jaisalmer House 26, Man Singh Road, New Delhi-110011 vide letter dated 22.03.2024 transferred the first appeal to the First Appellate Authority Delhi State Legal Services Authority, 3rd Floor, Rouse Avenue District Court Complex, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi-110002 under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Complainant: Not present Respondent: Smt. Meena - Section Officer, NALSA and Smt. Urmila Khosa - PIO, DSLSA were present during hearing.Page 2 of 3
Respondent present during hearing stated that appropriate action has been taken in this case, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act. The respondent from DSLSA has submitted a hand written note which has been taken on record. The Applicant has chosen not to contest the case.
Decision:
Upon careful examination of the facts of the case and upon hearing averments of the Respondent present during hearing, it is noted that the Respondent had taken appropriate action, in consonance with the legal provisions of the RTI Act. The Complainant has chosen not to buttress the instant case. Since the Complainant has approached the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which needs to be adjudicated is whether there was any deliberate or willful concealment of information. From the records of the case, it appears that the reply sent by the Respondent is in consonance with the mandate of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case.
It is relevant to note the observation 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, 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."
31. .. 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 since appropriate action had been taken and information in this regard provided by the Respondent, the reply suffers from no legal infirmity and there is no deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent in this case. Therefore, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case.
The case is disposed off accordingly.
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)