Central Information Commission
Smruti Prasad Jena vs Department Of Posts on 17 August, 2023
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
शिकायत संख्या/Complaint No.: CIC/POSTS/C/2022/643594
शिकायत संख्या/Complaint No.: CIC/POSTS/C/2022/665741
Smruti Prasad Jena ...शिकायतकताा/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Department of Posts-India, Cuttack South Division,
Cuttack-753001 (Odisha).
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Superintendent of Post Offices,
Department of Posts-India, Kendrapara Division,
Kendrapara-754211 (Odisha).
...प्रशतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:
Complaint No.: CIC/POSTS/C/2022/643594
RTI application filed on : 03.06.2022
CPIO replied on : 23.06.2022, 15.07.2022
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Complaint received at CIC : 11.08.2022
Date of Hearing : 17.08.2023
Date of Decision : 17.08.2023
Complaint No.: CIC/POSTS/C/2022/665741
RTI application filed on : 14.08.2022
CPIO replied on : 02.09.2022
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Complaint received at CIC : 12.12.2022
Date of Hearing : 17.08.2023
Date of Decision : 17.08.2023
Page 1 of 7
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
(1) Complaint No.: CIC/POSTS/C/2022/643594
Information sought:
The Complainant sought following information:
• CPIO/SPO, Kendrapara Division furnished reply dated 22.06.2022 as under:
• CPIO/SPO, Cuttack Division furnished reply, dated 15.07.2022, as under:Page 2 of 7
• Dissatisfied with the information furnished, Complainant filed instant complaint.
• PIO, Cuttack Division has furnished reply dated 01.08.2023 as under :
• Written submission dated 01.08.2023 has been received from the CPIO/SPO, Cuttack Division as under :Page 3 of 7
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO/SPO, Kendrapara Division vide letter dated 03.08.2023, as under :
Grounds for Complaint The PIO has not provided information to the Complainant.
(2) Complaint No.: CIC/POSTS/C/2022/665741 Information sought:
The Complainant sought following information:Page 4 of 7
• CPIO furnished reply, dated 02.09.2022, as under:
• Dissatisfied with the information furnished, Complainant filed instant complaint.
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO/SPO, Kendrapara Division vide letter dated 03.08.2023, as under Grounds for Complaint The PIO has not provided information to the Complainant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present: -
Complainant: Absent Respondent: 1. Mr. Debruta Sethi, SPO, Kedrapara
2. Mr. Gajendra Prasad, SPO, Cuttack, South Division.
The Respondent stated that the Complainant has sought information relating to Mr. Santosh Kumar Behra and same has been duly furnished to her within stipulated time frame. They further averred that there is no delay on their part while responding to the instant RTI Application.
Decision:
Since the parties are same the aforementioned Complaints are clubbed together for hearing and final disposal.
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 of Page 5 of 7 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 within the prescribed time limit of the RTI Act, 2005 . 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 6 of 731. 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 CPIOs and hence no action is warranted under section 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
Matters are disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया)
Information Commissioner (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानितसत्यानितप्रनत)
Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाि ग्रोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 7 of 7