Central Information Commission
Shailesh Maheshwari vs Housing And Urban Development ... on 29 August, 2022
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
शिकायतसंख्या/Complaint No.: CIC/HUDCO/C/2021/644429
Shailesh Maheshwari ...शिकायतकताा/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Executive Director-(Law)/I/C, Housing & Urban
Development Corporation (Minsitry of Housing &
Urban Affairs), Core-7-A, HUDCO Bhawan,
India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi110003.
...प्रशतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09.03.2021
CPIO replied on : 07.04.2021
First appeal filed on : 13.04.2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Complaint received at CIC : 29.04.2021
Date of Hearing : 29.08.2022
Date of Decision : 29.08.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Complainant sought following information:Page 1 of 6
• CPIO reply dated 07.04.2021 :
• Written submissions received from theb PIO, vide letter dated 18.08.2022, as under:Page 2 of 6 Page 3 of 6
Grounds for Complaint The PIO has not provided information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Complainant : Present in person Respondent: Mr. S P Tripathi, ED & FAA along with Mr. J D Nahar, AD(Law) & CPIO, both present in person.
The appellant reiterated the factual matrix of the case and stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO as no details pertaining to the base interest rate Page 4 of 6 has not been provided till date. He further stated that all the banks publish their basis interest rates online and submitted the copy of the same for the perusal of the Commission.
Upon Commissions instance, CPIO submitted that a written submission enumerating all the details has already been submitted for the perusal of the Commission on 18.08.2022. He further submitted that the Respondent authority has a reference rate and not the base rate of interest as sought by the Complainant.
The Complainant interjected to state that base rate of interest was mentioned in certain agreement of HUDCO signed with certain third party. The CPIO interjected to the said submission and submitted that the said document has no relevance to the instant matter and that their office is transparent in disseminating the relevant information and will provide everything that is available on records.
Decision :
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that initially reply was provided to the Complainant by the CPIO on 10.10.2020. Further, CPIO in the written submission dated 21.06.2022 has enumerated the factual position in response to the information sought by the complainant.
In the light of the above observations, no malafide intention can be ascribed on the part of the CPIO. Thus, no action is warranted in the instant matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and has already approached the Commission by filing an appeal in the similar matter which is pending final decision. 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:-
"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 Page 5 of 6 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."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in this 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 20 of the Act.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया)
Information Commissioner (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अनिप्रमानितसत्यानितप्रनत)
Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाि ग्रोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 6 of 6