Central Information Commission
Ajay Kumar vs Delhi Police on 21 December, 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
शिकायत संख्या/Complaint No.: CIC/DEPOL/C/2022/603804
Ajay Kumar ...शिकायतकताा/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
O/o. the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police-I,
Outer District, 1st Floor, Pushpanjali,
Road No.-43, Delhi-110034.
...प्रशतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 23.09.2019
CPIO replied on : 03.10.2019
First appeal filed on : 06.12.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 20.12.2019
Complaint received at CIC : 18.01.2022
Date of Hearing : 21.12.2022
Date of Decision : 21.12.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
The Complainant sought following information:
• CPIO furnished reply, dated 03.10.2019, as under:Page 2 of 5
• Dissatisfied with the response received from the PIO, the Complainant filed First Appeal dated 06.12.2019. The First Appellate Authority/Dy. Commissioner of Police, Outer District vide order dated 20.12.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.
• Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied the Complainant approached the Commission and filed Second Appeal dated 25.12.2019. Commission directed the PIO (Mr. Rakesh Sangwan, ACP) to provide the relevant information to the Appellant, upon payment of the prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012.
• In compliance of order of this Commission, CPIO furnished reply, dated 26.11.2021, as under:
• Dissatisfied with the information furnished, Complainant filed instant complaint.
Grounds for Complaint The PIO has not provided information to the Complainant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Mr. S.R. Meena, ACP,HQ, Outer District.
The Respondent submitted that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Complainant within stipulated time frame. He further submitted that he would abide by the order of the Commission if any.
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 Page 3 of 5 Complainant by the CPIO within the prescribed time limit of the RTI Act, 2005 . 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 while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
Page 4 of 5xxx "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 these complaints' 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.
No further action lies.
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 5 of 5