Central Information Commission
Dhruba Jyoti Chetia vs Department Of Health & Family Welfare on 7 July, 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/MOHFW/C/2024/623045.
Shri Dhruba Jyoti Chetia. निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO
Lokopriya Gopinath Bordoloi ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Regional Institute of Mental Health
Date of Hearing : 02.07.2025
Date of Decision : 02.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 02.02.2024
PIO replied on : 01.03.2024
First Appeal filed on : 19.04.2024
First Appellate Order on : 17.05.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 03.06.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.02.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Kindly provide true copies of information from competent authority of the Government regarding creation/conversion of the posts mentioned in advertisement number 03/2024 vide No. LGB/Estt/246/01/Part- V/414 Dated 24th Jan, 2024 (Attached)
2. Kindly provide true copies of information from competent authority of the Government regarding creation/conversion of the post of Deputy Director, LGBRIMH, Tezpur, published in the National Career Service portal with Job Id 17U63-1C103491761371 posted on 08/06/2022. (Attached)
3. Kindly provide related information about recruitment rules approved by the competent authority of the Government for the above-mentioned posts.
4. Kindly provide information regarding approval of competent authority of the Government regarding modes of recruitment for the above- mentioned posts"
The CPIO vide letter dated 01.03.2024 replied as under:-
"Reply Replies of the queries are as follows:
Page 1
1. All these posts are originally created by Govt. of Assam/MHA (NE division) more than 20 years ago. This institute is now not under them.
Post creation orders of them as mentioned are not available as the same has been disposed as per Government policy and instructions time to time.
2. Not available. The advertisement has been cancelled / withdrawn due to administrative/technical reason. The same has been intimated to NCS Portal, Gol accordingly.
3. Page 4 * 2 Rs. 8.00
4. Recruitment modes of these posts are as follows:
Medical Superintendent-Deputation Chief Administrative Officer-Deputation/Promotion Chief Finance and Accounts Officer-Deputation/Promotion Administrative Officer-Deputation/Promotion Deputy Director-Not applicable. Please refer to serial no 2 Note: Re-employment on short term contact basis are sometimes considered against Deputation posts considering the need of the institute and Gol guideline."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 19.04.2024. The FAA, Deputy Director, OSD vide order dated 17.05.2024 stated as under:-
"I have gone through the reply of the PIO dated 01.03.2024 and the points raised in appeal by the appellant. I find that the PIO has provided information as per its availability and within the limitation of Govt. of India Record Retention Schedule / relevant rules and time to time instruction for disposal of old records. Query 1: The post of Medical Superintendent, Chief Finance and Accounts Officer, Administrative Officer were created originally under Govt. of Assam (more than 20 years ago) and MHA. Sanction details as available are mentioned under query no: 2 Query2: True copies of orders are not available as per Govt. of India Record Retention Schedule as already informed by PIO. However sanction number of creation of these posts as per available records have been mentioned below: No. 1808 LSG dted 11.05.1927 No. NMD, 284 dated 16.02.20 11th meeting BOA resolution No. 3 No. 2/46/2000/NE II dated 27.04.2001 No. 2/46/2000-NE II(D-I) DONER dated 13.05.2002 This institute has already been transferred totally from GoA /NEC. Hence transferring the RTI request to these authorities will be inappropriate at this stage.
The post of Deputy Director is a re-designated post from the post of Project Engineer (which was originally created by GoA vide sanction No. HLA 338/88/19) of the pay scale 14,300-400-18,300 currently L-13 as per 7th CPC as notified vide No. LGB/Estt/1883/Vol.1/2550 dated 02.05.2022. Query 3: The documents have already been provided vide letter dated 26.04.2024 after submission of required fees as per RTI Act.
Page 2 Query 4: This institute has already been transferred totally from GOA / NEC. Hence transferring the RTI request to these authorities will be inappropriate at this stage."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 01.07.2025 has been received from the CPIO reiterating the aforementioned facts and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Dr. Hemanta Dutta, OSD and Deputy Director- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Complainant stated that the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application has not been furnished to him till date. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application has been duly provided to the Complainant from their official record.
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 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 Page 3 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 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.
Page 4 The 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 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)