Central Information Commission
Mohit Singh vs Archaeological Survey Of India on 1 August, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/ALSOI/C/2023/649078
Shri Mohit Singh निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Archaeological Survey of India
Date of Hearing : 30.07.2024
Date of Decision : 30.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 22.09.2023
PIO replied on : 16.10.2023
First Appeal filed on : - -
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 18.10.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.09.2023 seeking information on following points:-
1. "What is the definition of Heritage Site according to Archaeological Survey of India being used in tenders? Copy of notification, law, note, etc. in this regard may please be furnished.
2. What is the definition of Heritage Building according to Archaeological Survey of India being used in tenders? Copy of notification, law, note, etc. in this regard may please be furnished."
The ASA & CPIO, Archaeological Survey of India, Jammu vide letter dated 16.10.2023 replied as under:-
"The definition of heritage has been defined in AMASR Act 1958 amended in 2010 which is already in public domain."
Page 1 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 23.07.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record. The relevant extract whereof as under:
As per provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958 and its further Amendment vide 2010, there is no any definition of either "Heritage Site" or "Heritage Building".
However during 'Notice inviting tenders for any Job Work or Supply of metrical in respect to conservation works undertaken by this office, 'Heritage Site' or 'heritage building' is used for case of understanding to normal public as a substitute for Archaeological Sites' and 'Ancient Monuments' respectively. as under:
Written submission dated 23.07.2024 has been received from the Complainant and same has been taken on record.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present through audio-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Bakshi, photo Officer/CPIO- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Complainant reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the information furnished by the PIO is incorrect and misleading. He stated that correct and complete information has not been furnished by the PIO.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the information as available in their official record has been duly furnished to the Complainant. He further stated that the 'Heritage Site' or 'heritage building' is used in tenders only for the understating of the general public as a substitute for Archaeological Sites' and 'Ancient Monuments' 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 Page 2 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 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 Page 3 "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.
Complaint is disposed of 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 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)