Central Information Commission
Satish Mahaldar vs School Education Department Ut Of J & K on 6 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
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/SEDJK/C/2024/616550.
Shri Satish mahaldar. निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
School Education Department UT of J & K.
Date of Hearing : 24.04.2025
Date of Decision : 24.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07.09.2023
PIO replied on : NA
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 23.04.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.09.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1 Kindly share & submit action Taken report for the proposal / letter duly issued by Govt of India Ministry of education, Department of school education and literacy (Is-4 Section), New Delhi towards The construction of Modern Technical higher secondary school in Srinagar (JKUT). The copy of letter is attached for your reference."
Aggrieved by non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO within the time limit, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present Respondent: Ms. Dipika Sharma, US, Hilal Ahmed Bhatt, Asst. legal, EDr Riaz Ahmed, Deputy Secretary, Shri Popinder Singh, Editor, Bilal Ahmed Seikh, Asst. Attorney The Submissions of both the parties were heard.
Page 1 The CPIO submitted that a reply with relevant documents were sent to the Appellant. The Complainant on the other hand apprised the Commission that he has not received any reply from the CPIO.
The reply with documents were placed on record by the CPIO for the perusal of the Commission.
The CPIO during the hearing agreed to resend the reply with documents to the Complainant.
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 2 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 (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)