Central Information Commission
Prakash Chand Chhaganmalji Jain vs Central Information Commission on 16 February, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सच
ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/CICOM/C/2019/103866
In the matter of:
Prakash Chand Chhaganmalji Jain
... Complainant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
RTI Cell, Central Information Commission,
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi - 110067
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 05/11/2018 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Complaint filed on : 21/01/2019 Date of Hearing : 16/02/2021 Date of Decision : 16/02/2021 The following were present:
Complainant : Present over VC Respondent: Shri Ram Kumar, Nodal CPIO, present over intra VC Information Sought:
The Complainant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the status, action taken and result regarding his reply dated 09/10/2018 (Dy. No. 162711 dated 16/10/2018), on which the Registrar has no power to decide the case, as per the order dated 07/08/2018 for taking appropriate action, issued by Information Commissioner(Divya Prakash Sinha) in the complaint case no. CIC/CICOM/C/2017/155618/SD.1
2. Provide the status, Action taken and result regarding his reply dated 06/09/2018 (Dy. No. 155773, dated 11/09/2018) in which complete compliance and full bench hearing was requested.
Grounds for Complaint The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant submitted that penal action may be taken against the concerned persons for not handling his RTI application properly. The Commission is also in receipt of written submissions dated 12.02.2021 received on 16.02.2021 wherein the appellant had objected to the fact that he was not given enough time to file his written submissions as it was mentioned in the notice that any reply/submissions are to be filed before 07 days from the date of hearing, however, he has received the notice only on 09.02.2021. He had also submitted that one of his complaints dated 21.01.2019 was not taken on record and only the present RTI application was registered.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 27.11.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that initially the RTI application was forwarded to the concerned CPIO vide letter dated 26.11.2018 for sending a reply to the complainant. It is further noted that vide letter dated 19.09.2018, the complainant was informed about the action taken on one of his letters referred to in the above mentioned RTI application. It is further noted that a point-wise reply was given to the complainant on 27.11.20108 by virtue of which he was duly informed that no action was taken on either of his letters as under the RTI Act there is no provision of review. The Commission is unable to find any flaw in the reply so given as the complainant was duly informed about the action taken on his letters.
It is further noted that basically the complainant is aggrieved as he had requested that his complaint case which was already disposed off by some other bench of the Commission should be registered afresh as a second appeal and the same should be heard by a larger bench of three Information Commissioners and when he had addressed his RTI application to Shri S C Sharma, why it was forwarded to Shri Haro Prasad Sen. In this regard, it is brought to the notice of the complainant that Chief Information Commission 2 has the authority to allocate the cases to different Benches/Commissioners being the master of the roster. The appellant cannot on his own decide who will hear his case and who not. In this regard, attention is drawn to the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2021 in Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2020. The relevant para is extracted below:
"We see no valid and good ground for recusal by one of us. Merely because the order might not be in favour of the applicant earlier, cannot be a ground for recusal. A litigant cannot be permitted to browbeat the Court by seeking a Bench of its choice. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant petitioner in person that one of us (Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.) should recuse from hearing the present miscellaneous application is not accepted and the said prayer is rejected."
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission is not able to find any flaw in the reply given to the complainant and hence the complaint is not established.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date 3