Central Information Commission
Irshad Ahmad Parray vs Revenue Department Ut Of J & K on 4 July, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/RDUJK/C/2023/604761
Shri Irshad Ahmad Parray निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Revenue Department UT of J & K
Date of Hearing : 02.07.2024
Date of Decision : 02.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 22.12.2022
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : - -
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.12.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"Copy of selection list of Class-IV officials in District Baramulla recommended by Deputy Commissioner, Chairman, District Recruitment Board, Baramulla Vide Office Order No. 01/Recruitment of 1993, Dated: 09-07-1993, and Endorsement No. EPM/RECTT/ Class-IV/93/47-121, Dated: 09-07-1993, for appointment in Health Department, District Baramulla Copy of all other Class-IV selections made by the Deputy Commissioner, Chairman District Sub-Ordinate Recruitment Board, Baramulla during the year 1993, and recommended for appointment in various departments of the district."
CPIO, transferred the instant RTI Application to CPIO, Chief Medical Officer vide letter dated 09.01.2023.
Page 1 Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 01.07.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof as under :
Kindly refer your letter No: CIC/RDUJK/C/2023/604761 dated:
07.06.2024, in case titled Irshad Ahmad Parray V/s CPIO O/o Additional Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla. In this connection, I am directed to request you that the report is reflected as under:-
This office received RTI application of Irshad Ahmad Parray on 23.12.2022 and the same was forwarded to Chief Medical Officer, Baramulla and Joint Director Planning, Baramulla with the request to provide the information to the information seeker directly under section section 6(3) & section 5(3) of RTI Act, 2005 respectively, vide this office letter No: DCB/RTI/574-76 dated: 09.01.2023 and copy forwarded to information seeker (copy enclosed)".
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present through video-conferencing Respondent: Mr. Khilad Ahmad Wani-AO, DC office-Baramulla-participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Complainant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that he had sought selection list of class IV officials recruited in the year 1993 but same has not been provided by the PIO. He stated that he had sought information related to appointment made in Health Department and selection made by Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla in various department of the district. He stated that he has not received any reply from the Respondent.
The Respondent stated that the instant RTI Application was transferred to the Chief Medical Officer in January 2023, since the queries raised by the Complainant was related to Health Department. He stated that the information sought in the instant RTI Application relates to selection made in the year 1993 which is very old record and same is not traceable. He affirmed to search their records again and in case the information sought is still not traceable then he will file an appropriate affidavit in this regard.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free Page 2 of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
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 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."
Page 3
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."
xxx "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.
Complaint is disposed of 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)