Central Information Commission
Sarwan Kumar vs Pg Institute Of Medical Education & ... on 31 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/UTOCH/C/2024/120115/PGIME
Shri Sarwan Kumar. निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
PG Institute of Medical Education & Research,
Chandigarh.
Date of Hearing : 29.05.2025
Date of Decision : 29.05.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 02.02.2024
PIO replied on : 15.02.2024
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 28.06.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.02.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"i) Certified copies of all representation submitted by Smt. Anju Goyal, Stenographer for regularization of services from the date of joining along with complete noting portion. (E-II Branch)
ii) Certified copies of orders for grant of ACP/MACP (date of first, second, third financial up-gradation under ACP/MACP policy) along with DPC memo and complete noting portion in respect S/Shri Munish Kumar, J.P. Srivastava and Siya Ram of Superintending Hospital Engineer (SHE Office) PGI Chandigarh.
Certified copies of seniority list containing names of these officials be Supplied firem 1992 10 2010."
The CAPIO vide letter dated 15.02.2024 replied as under:-
"The file of Smt. Anju Goyal, Stenographer is under consideration. The information sought may be supplied as and when the file is received."
Page 1 The CAPIO vide letter dated 10.05.2024 replied as under:-
"This is in reference to this office reply dated 15.02.2024 and to inform you that the file of Smt. Anju Goyal, Stenographer has attained finality. In this regard, you are advised to deposit requisite fees of Rs. 606 (303 pages @Rs. 2 per page), as photocopy charges with the RTI Cell of the Institute and submit a copy of the receipt in this section so that the information available in records may be supplied to you under RTI Act, 2005."
The CAPIO vide letter dated 17.05.2024 replied as under:-
"The information sought is enclosed at Annexure-I."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 21.05.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..6. On receipt of the requisite photocopy charges, the desired information i.e. Photocopy of noting portion along with correspondence portion of the personal file of Ms. Anju Goyal, Stenographer, was supplied to the applicant vide this office letter dated 17.05.2024 (Annxure-R5). It was also specified in the above letter that the First Appellate Authority is the Deputy Director (Admn.), PGIMER, Chandigarh.
7. After receiving the above information, the applicant did not make appeal to the First Appellate Authority, if he had unsatisfaction regarding the information supplied to him.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that the personal file of Ms. Anju Goyal, Stenographer was under consideration with the authority, due to which the information was not supplied to the applicant, and it was informed to the applicant within the stipulated time that as and when the concerned file is received, the information may be provided to him. Accordingly, when the file was received back in this office, the information was supplied to the applicant after obtaining consent from the Ms. Anju Goyal, Stenographer. As the circumstances for not supplying the information within the stipulated time, were beyond control, hence, this was not deliberated delay on the part of the CPIO..."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Talwar, Sr. AO, Mr. Ankur Sharma, Sr. AO, Mr. Sanjeev Vinal, AAO- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
Page 2 The Respondent stated that the information sought by the Complainant has been duly provided to the Complainant. They stated that the information sought by the Complainant was related to personal information of third- party and procedure as mentioned under section 11 was followed by the PIO. They further stated that the third party had given her consent for disclosure of information sought and accordingly the information sought in the instant RTI Application has been duly provided 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 can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Commission further observes that the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act wherein the Commission is required to examine whether there was any deliberate denial of information by the public authority. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...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."
"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 Page 3 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."
"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 off 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 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)