Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

G Rajaraman vs Ut Of Puducherry on 24 July, 2024

                             केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/UTPON/C/2023/120909


G Rajaraman                                           ....निकायतकताग /Complainant


                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम


PIO,
Nettapakkam Commune Panchayat,
V S Nagar, Nettapakkam,
Puducherry - 605106.                                   ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    19.07.2024
Date of Decision                    :    23.07.2024

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on            :    06.03.2023
CPIO replied on                     :    05.04.2023
First appeal filed on               :    Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order   :    Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated          :    09.05.2023

Information sought

:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.03.2023 seeking the following information:

Kindly fix date, time and place for the inspection and collection of records in connection with the dumping of garbage's and how much fee collected for the Page 1 of 4 collection of garbage's pertains to be Nettapakkam Commune Panchayat Jurisdiction Villages as per section 2 (J) 1, 2, 3, 4 of RTI 2005 The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 05.04.2023 stating as under:

"All present the garbage of villages in Nettapakkam Commune is been collected by a Company named HR square based on their contract with local Administration Department Puducherry. The garbage which are collected are carried by their vehicles and are dumped in the Kurumbapet dumpyard. At present the garbage is not dumped anywhere inside the Nettapakkam Commune limits".

Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated. The FAA order is not on record.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Not Present.

Respondent: Shri M D Ramalingeshwar Rao, Assistant Engineer present through Video-Conference.

The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 05.04.2023 complete reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Complainant.

The Respondent, during the hearing, stated that the Complainant can, even now, inspect the relevant record in their office related to the information sought in his RTI application.

Decision:

The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaint was non- receipt of information from the Respondent. In this regard, it was noteworthy that complete reply/information as per RTI application is provided to the Page 2 of 4 Complainant as per RTI Act. Further, the Complainant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.

Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:

" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."

However, taking liberal view in the matter and as agreed by the Respondent, the Commission, therefore, advised the PIO to facilitate an opportunity of inspection of the available and relevant records as sought in the RTI application to the Complainant on a mutually decided date & time within six weeks. The intimation of the date and time of the inspection shall be provided to the Complainant by the PIO telephonically and in writing. In the process of facilitating the inspection and providing subsequent copies of the record, the PIO is at liberty to withhold/redact third party information or any other information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act read with Section 10 of the RTI Act.

Copy of documents that the Complainant desires during the inspection shall be provided by the PIO on payment of requisite fees as per RTI Rules.

No further relief can be granted in the matter.

The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:

The FAA Dy. Director (RD), LAD, Puducherry -605001.

Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)