Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Koushik Karmakar vs Ministry Of Social Justice & ... on 25 February, 2026

                            के ीय सूचना आयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                         बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067

िशकायत सं     ा / Complaint No.                CIC/MOSJE/C/2024/644529


Koushik Karmakar                              ....िशकायतकता/Complainant

                                   VERSUS
                                    बनाम

CPIO,
Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment
New Delhi                                       ... ितवादीगण /Respondents

Date of Hearing                    : 25/02/2026
Date of Decision                   : 25/02/2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :                   Ashutosh Chaturvedi

Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal/Complaint:

 RTI application filed on                25/07/2024
 CPIO replied on                         14/11/2024
 First appeal filed on                   16/09/2024
 FAA's order dated                       Not on Record
 Complaint dated                         07/10/2024

Information sought

:

The complainant has filed RTI application dated 25/07/2024 seeking the following information:

"(i) Whether Mr. Koushik Karmakar, S/o- Sri Krishnapada Karmakar, Resident of Dhaleshwar, Agartala, Tripura preferred any prayer for recommending his transfer to Shri Ramdas Athawale, Hon'ble Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India from Khowai sub-division Court No-1 to Sepahijala/Agartala or adjacent to his house on the basis of which DO letter vide Second Appeal/ Complaint No. - CIC/MOSJE/C/2024/644529 Page 1 of 4 2481/SJM/Mum/2022, dated 14.06.2022 was issued by Shri Ramdas Athawale, Hon'ble Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India?

(ii) If Mr. Koushik Karmakar, S/o- Sri Krishnapada Karmakar, Resident of Dhaleshwar, Agartala, Tripura preferred any prayer for recommending his transfer to Shri Ramdas Athawale, Hon'ble Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India from Khowai sub-division Court No-1 to Sepahijala/Agartala or adjacent to his house then furnish the copy of that letter praying for recommending his transfer....."

2. Due to non-receipt of CPIO Reply at that time, The Complainant filed the First Appeal with the First Appellate Authority on 16/09/2024.

3. On not receiving any reply from the First Appellate Authority, being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Commission by filing instant Complaint on 07/10/2024

4. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant dated 14/11/2024 stated as under:

"1. Please refer to your RTI application dated 25th July 2024 and RTI Appeal dated 16th September 2024 seeking certain information relating to D.O.No.2481/SJM-Mum/2022 dated 14th June 2022 addressed to the Registrar General, Tripura High Court, Agartala by Shri Ramdas Athawale, Hon'ble Minister of State Social Justice & Empowerment requesting for transfer of Shri Koushik Karmakar (TJS-Grade-III) from Khowai District to West Tripura/Sepahijala or District adjacent to his house.

2. In this regard, the information provided by the Office of Hon'ble Minister of State Social Justice & Empowerment (RA) as per their reference dated 28th October 2024 is enclosed herewith.

3. In case you are not satisfied with the above information, you can make an appeal with the 1st Appellate Authority, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment within the prescribed time as per the provision of RTI Act."

4. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Absent Respondent: Awdesh KR. Mehta, Under Secretary, participated in the hearing in person.

The Complainant has not availed the opportunity to participate in the hearing to contest his case. The Respondent reiterates the facts of the case and further submits that information sought has been provided by them.

DECISION The Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply was provided to the complainant by the CPIO. The Commission therefore does not find any malafide intention on the part of then CPIO.

Commission further observes that the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act wherein the Commission is required to examine whether there was any deliberate denial of information by the public authority. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:

"...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." "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.

The Complaint stands disposed of.

Sd/-

Ashutosh Chaturvedi (आशुतोष चतुवदी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/ Date: 25.02.2026 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Singh Meena (राम िसंह मीना) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011- 26715467 Address of the Parties:

1. CPIO Department of Social Justice & Empowerment, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001

2. Koushik Karmakar Second Appeal/ Complaint No. - CIC/MOSJE/C/2024/644529 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)