Central Information Commission
Ghananadh R vs Bureau Of Indian Standards on 15 April, 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/BISHQ/C/2023/600034
Shri GHANANADH R निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Bureau of Indian Standards
Date of Hearing : 12.04.2024
Date of Decision : 12.04.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 25.10.2022
PIO replied on : 04.11.2022
First Appeal filed on : Nil
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 01.01.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 25.10.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"In BIS 4333- part 1, it is given in Table 2 Order in which Refractions should be Separated from weighed sample. The order of Varietal admixture is 12 and Pin Point Damaged is 13.
1) Is that means in Gr A rice sample, Rice kernel which is Varietal Admixture and having pin point damage should be considered as Varietal Admixture as order of Varietal Admixture is prior to Pin-Point Damage ?
2) Is Chalky which is broken shall be considered as broken as the order of broken is prior to Chalky?"
The CPIO, Bureau of Indian Standards vide letter dated 04.11.2022 replied as under:-
Page 1 of 4"With respect to the query no. 1 of the RTI application, Table 2 of IS 4333 (Part
1) provides the order in which refraction should be separated for weighed sample instead of individual kernels.
With respect to query no. 2 of the RTI application, the response provided for Query no. 1 should be referred."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA vide order dated 20.01.2023 held as under :
We have given notice for hearing and was planned on 20.01.2023 for hearing the concern against appeal. Link for virtual hearing was sent on registered email of applicant. Concerned raised by RTI applicant was heard in presence of CPIO as well during hearing. RTI applicant was inclined to know the interpretation of Indian Standard. It was informed him that kindly sent your concern/comments related to Indian Standard at [email protected] and would be taken up appropriately by BIS Secretariat.
Furthermore, being first appellate authority meticulously examined the information furnished by CPIO. The information provided by CPIO is in order.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 03.04.2024 has been received from the CPIO/SO(FAD) and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: 1. Mr. Rajpal, SCD/Jt. Director
2. Mr. Vijay Laxmi, SO The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly furnished to the Complainant. Furthermore, the Complainant has sought interpretation of Indian Standards, and he can send any comments/opinions related to Indian Standard at [email protected] and same would be taken up by BIS Secretariat.
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 Complainant, free Page 2 of 4 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 of 431. 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 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 18 and 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed 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 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)