S S Chawla vs Central Vigilance Commission on 2 August, 2023

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

S S Chawla vs Central Vigilance Commission on 2 August, 2023

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                                  के ीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                             बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
                          Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No : CIC/CVCOM/C/2023/103976

S S Chawla                                             ....िशकायतकता  /Complainant
                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम
The CPIO,
CVC, RTI CELL, SATARKATA BHAWAN,
BLOCK-A, INA. NEW DELHT-110023

The CPIO,
NBCC, RTI Cell, NBCC
Lodhi Road, New Dethi-110003.

The CPIO
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS,
RTI CELL, NIRMAN BHAWAN, New Delhi-110011              ....  ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                    :   01/08/2023
Date of Decision                   :   01/08/2023

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :             Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on           :   16/11/2022
CPIO replied on                    :   08/12/2022
First appeal filed on              :   NIL
First Appellate Authority order    :   31/05/2022
Complaint dated                    :   NIL



Information sought

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.11.2022 seeking the following information is as under:-

" ( A ) Applicant has lodged his online complaint dated 13.10.2022 before the CVC and having identical No. 208408/2022/vigilance-13. In the matter CPIO concern please furnish information that (i) Present status of complaint dated 13.10.2022

(ii) True copies of file notings made among all concerned Officials to whom corresponding notings were sent upon receipt of above complaint (iii) ) Decision taken by the Competent Authority.

(B) Applicant has lodged his online complaint dated 27.10.2022 before the CVC and having identical No. is 209124/2022/vigilance-S. In the matter CPIO concern please furnish information that ( i ) Present status of complaint dated 27.10.2022

(ii) True copies of file notings made among all concerned • officials to whom corresponding notings were sent upon receipt of above complaint (iii) Decision taken by the Competent Authority."

The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 08.12.2022 stating as under:-

"Please refer to your online RTI application dated 16.11.2022 on the subject cited above.

2. Para-wise reply is as under:

Para (A){(i)-(iii)): Your complaint No. 208408/2022/vigilance-8 dated 13.10.2022 has been sent to CVO. NBCC for necessary action vide OM No. 208408/2022/vigilance-8 dated 22.11.2022(copy of OM and acknowledgment are enclosed). Further, as per the complaint handling policy of the Commission available in CVC website www.cvc.nic.in, the Commission do not expect a reply/report from the concerned authority in r/o the complaints sent for necessary action. However, as a matter of convenience to you, your RTI application is being transferred to the CPIO/CVO, NBCC u/s 6(3) of RTI Act, for providing appropriate information/reply to you.

Para(B) ((i) to (iii)}: Your complaint No. 209124/2022/vigilance-8 dated 27.10.2022 has been sent to CVO, MoHUA for necessary action vide OM No. 016/W&H/023-532178 dated 02.12.2022(copy of OM is enclosed). Further, as per the complaint handling policy of the Commission available in CVC website www.cvc.nic.in the Commission do not expect a reply/report from the concerned authority in r/o the complaints sent for necessary action. However, as a matter of convenience to you, your RTI application is being transferred to the CPIO/CVO, MoHUA u/s 6(3) of RTI Act, for providing appropriate information/reply to you."

Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 14.12.2022. FAA's order, dated 06.01.2023 is as under: -

"7. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the appellant has sought file notings w.r.t appellant's complaint dated 13.10.2022 & 27.10.2022, which have not been provided by the CPI0. Further, the CPIO has not given any reason for not providing the file notings. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to process the information sought in pars A(ii) and B(ii), within 10 days from the receipt of this order.

8. The issue raised by the Appellant in his Appeal dated 14.12.2022 is thus disposed of."

In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO provided a reply on 16.01.2023 stating as under:

"Para A(ii): Noting of your complaint No. 208408/2022/vigilance-8 dated 13.10.2022 consist of 01(one) page is enclosed herewith at (Annexure -l).

Para B(ii): Your complaint No. 219124/2022lvigilance-8 dated 2'?.10 2022 has been sent to CVO, MoHUA for necessary action vide OM No. 016/W&H/023-532178 dated 02.12.2022 (copy of OM is enclosed). However, file noting of your complaint No.2\gl24t2\22l.tlgilaltce-8 dated 27.10.2022 cannot be provided as the information comes under the category of personal information as disclosure of it has no relationship to any public activity or interest and it would be unwarranted invasion of the privacy of individuals which is denied under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005."

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Present through intra-video conference.

Respondent: Sitaram Yadav, Director & CPIO, CVC along with S B Prasad, MoHUA and Manjeeta, NBCC present through intra-video conference.

The Complainant stated that the CPIO has failed to comply with the FAA's order as incomplete noting has been provided and part information has been denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act without even explaining as to who is the third party here. Lastly, he argued that the CPIO has not complied with the time frame of transferring the RTI Application to NBCC under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.

The CPIO affirmed that the complete file noting has been provided to the Complainant on para A (ii) of the RTI Application. He further submitted that the information sought for at para B(ii) relates to a file that bears reference of complaint relating to about 12 officers and previous complainants that is why the information was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Decision At the outset, the Commission dispenses with the role of Respondent(s) 2 & 3 in the matter as the instant complaint has been specifically filed against the CPIO, CVC.

The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the allegation that the CPIO failed to comply with the FAA's order is misplaced as the FAA never ordered to provide the information but only asked the CPIO to "process" the information sought for in the backdrop of the finding that the CPIO has not explained the denial of the file noting(s). Therefore, the primary ground of complaint is bereft of merit. As for the remaining contentions of the Complainant, the Commission although observes that there have been certain lapses on the part of the CPIO in terms of not having provided a cogent reply at the original instance and for not having justified the invocation of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as has been explained during the hearing, however, the material on record does not suggest any malafides on the part of the CPIO to attract action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act. Here, the Commission relies a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:

" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."

Similarly, an observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Bhagat Singh vs. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 is also relevant to point out here which reads as under:

"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two-year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."

Notwithstanding the lack of malafides, the CPIO, CVC is expected to exercise due caution and proactiveness in matters dealt with under the RTI Act in the future.

The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission