Central Information Commission
Prasannta Basu Ray vs Directorate Of Ordnance on 31 July, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No. CIC/DOORD/C/2023/126909
Prasannta Basu Ray ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Directorate of Ordnance,
Kolkata ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 24.04.2023 FA : Not on record Complaint : 19.06.2023
CPIO : 18.05.2023 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 29.07.2024
Date of Decision: 31.07.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SMT. ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 24.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
Please refer to the followings i) My application to Sri Mukul Kumar Garg/Additional Director General dt-18/5/2022 regarding authenticated documents to process pensions of daughters of deceased pensioners. ii) My RTI application dt-14.6.2022 iii) RTI application transferred to MSF by SO/CPIO/DOO(C&S) dt-24/6/2022 iii) First appeal forwarded to MSF vide letter dt-18/11/2022 iv) Communication dt-3/12/2022 from MSF to DOO (C&S) After so Page 1 of 5 many unnecessary journeys of my RTI application since June 2022 blatantly disrespecting the ACT the outcome is shocking and frustrating. At this I request the following information.
(i) The full name and details of the CPIO who transferred my application under sec 6(3) to MSF on 24/6/2022.
(ii) a) It was specifically mentioned in the said letter of CPIO to MSF to furnish information to the applicant as deemed fit directly to the applicant under intimation to CPIO OFB. Did MSF give any intimation to CPIO/DOO(C&S)?
b) If yes, please provide me a copy of that one.
c) If no action taken by MSF please intimate whether CPIO expedited the matter at all with MSF
(iii) FAA Sri Tanzin Wangyal also directed CPIO/DOO(C&S) to forward my 1st appeal dt-25/10/2022 to FAA MSF. And it was forwarded to MSF. But MSF returned the 1st appeal vide letter dt-13/12/2022 to Director General of Ordnance. At this please intimate the present status of my RTI application and 1st appeal.
(iv) a) It is evident from the action of DOO (C&S) that deficit of respect to RTI Act has touched a new low. DOO(C&S) unnecessary killed time since June 2022 to promote transparency about an important issue like helpless daughter's pension. It is seen PIO/MSF communicated the matter vide letter dt 06/7/2022. Please intimate the date of receipt of this letter by CPIO/DOO(C&S)
b) The action taken by CPIO/DOO(C&S) after receiving the communication from MSF.
(v) Please provide me any section of the act where 1st appeal can be transferred to other FAA.
Etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 2 of 5"Your offline RTI applications dated 24.04.2023 on the above subject, cannot be processed because you have submitted the RTI application fees which is not in proper. You may also check ofb.gov.in for instruction.
It was also requested to forward the IPO/Demand Draft/Bankers Cheque of Rs 10/- only which should be drawn in favour of Director General, Ordnance Factories, Kolkata, in order to proceed further in the matter."
3. Aggrieved with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 19.06.2023.
4. The Complainant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dy. Director attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The Complainant during the hearing requested the Commission to convert his Complaint case into Second Appeal. He stated that the Respondent deliberately refrained to provide the information to his RTI Application.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the Complainant was informed to fulfill the technical requirement as per the provisions of the RTI Act. It was informed to the Complainant that the IPO should be drawn in favour of Director General Ordnance Factories Kolkata, which he failed to comply with. Additionally, he took the reference of a previous RTI Application in which the information was supplied to the Appellant.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that at the outset that the Complainant through the instant complaint has requested the Commission to take stringent action against the Respondent. The Commission notes that the instant matter is a Complaint under the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given and it is only required to be ascertained if the information has been denied with a malafide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. On the perusal of the documents on record the Commission observes that despite intimation the Complainant failed to forward the IPO/Demand Page 3 of 5 Draft/Bankers Cheque of Rs 10/- only which should be drawn in favour of Director General, Ordnance Factories, Kolkata.
Further, during the hearing the Complainant had asked for relief to be ordered in the matter, and requested the Commission to convert his Complaint case into Second Appeal, which is not envisaged under Section 18 of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission places reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2011 in the matter of Central Information Commissioner vs. State of Manipur wherein it was held as under:
"...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 Page 4 of 5 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...."
8. Having observed as above, no action is warranted in the matter under Section 18 of the RTI Act. The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 31.07.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनल एस एस िछकारा, ("रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26180514 (०११-२६१८०५१८) Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Directorate of Ordnance (C & S), 10A, S.K. Bose, Road Ayudh Bhawan, Kolkata, West Bengal-700001
2. Prasannta Basu Ray Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)