Central Information Commission
Shashank Mangal vs Department Of Financial Services on 4 October, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/DOFSR/A/2021/610090
Mr. Shashank Mangal ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
M/o. Finance, Department of Financial
Services, Jeevan Deep Building, 3rd Floor
Parliament Street, Delhi-110001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 20-11-2020 FA : 21-12-2020 SA : 22-03-2021
CPIO : 08-12-2020 FAO : 19-03-2021 Hearing : 28-09-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) M/o. Finance, Department of Financial Services, Delhi. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 08-12-2020 had denied the information as sought by the appellant under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied Page 1 of 3 with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 21-12-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 19-03- 2021 upheld CPIOs reply and appeal is disposed of accordingly. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant did not attend the hearing despite notice. The respondent, Mrs. Shivani Goel, Ass. Director along with Shri Arun Kumar, Under Secretary attended the hearing in person.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 08.12.2020, they have informed the appellant that "as per section 2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005, information sought in para (ii) fall under the purview of this CPIO, comments in this regards may be treated as 'NIL' from this Department." The respondent further submitted that a revised reply has also been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 26.09.2022.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought copy of all the orders passed by Appellate Authority under section 45-IA (7) of the RBI Act, 1934 in the cases (as mentioned in RTI application). It has been observed that initially the respondent has informed the appellant that the information sought in the instant RTI application is not maintained with their office, hence information was sent as "NIL." However, it was later observed that the subject matter pertains to BOA-
II Section, DFS. Therefore, the matter was taken up afresh and based on input received from BOA-II Section, the respondent has provided a revised reply vide their letter dated 26.09.2022 vide which the appellant had been informed that "Department of Financial Services (DFS) has not restored any Certificate of Registration of the Non-Banking Finance Companies (NBFCs), cancelled by the RBI for non-maintenance of the Net Owned Fund of Rs. 2 crore."
Page 2 of 37. In light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that initially the CPIO has stated that the information is not maintained in their office. But later after receiving the hearing notice of the Commission, they have invoked section 6 (3) of RTI Act, 2005 and transferred the instant RTI application to BOA- II Section, DFS. In this regard, the Commission is of the opinion that instead of transferring the instant RTI application to another Section, the respondent could have simply replied that the information as sought is not available in their office. Therefore, the CPIO is being warned for such poor conduct which should be brought to the notice of his controlling authority. Nonetheless, the reply given by the respondent vide their letter dated 26.09.2022 is in order and same is being upheld by the Commission.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date : 30-09-2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO M/o. Finance, Department of Financial Services, Jeevan Deep Building, 3rd Floor Parliament Street, Delhi-110001
2. Mr. Shashank Mangal Page 3 of 3