Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Kamala vs Semi Conductor Laboratory (Scl) on 27 May, 2024

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

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SCLCD/C/2023/614044/SCLAB

Smt. Kamala                                                     ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                     VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Semi-Conductor Laboratory (SCL)                      ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                         :   22.05.2024
Date of Decision                        :   24.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner          :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :         24.08.2022
PIO replied on                    :         12.10.2022
First Appeal filed on             :         14.11.2022
First Appellate Order on          :         14.12.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :         17.03.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.08.2022 seeking information on following 6 points:-
"1) Please provide by email -
1a) Copy of the MEITY and DOS list of attendees of the management-council meeting of the SCL Society. Also provide copy of the meeting minutes by email.
1b) Copy of the bye-laws of SCL Society.
1c) List of dates and type of management council meeting (agm, egm, special etc) held from 2019-till date. Also provide list of attendees and list of absentees and list of nominated participants for each meeting since 2019 onwards
2) Please provide by email-
2a) Copies of the approval of government and DOS for registering Semi-

Conductor Laboratory as a Society under 1860 Society Act.

2b) Copies of the approval order of SCL society bye-laws 2c) Copies of the approval order of SCL society recruitment rules 2d) Copies of the approval of the change in management council Chairman from DOS Secretary to Meity secretary. Also copy of intimation given to Page 1 of 4 Registrar of Societies, Punjab also if any intimation given to Registar ot Companies.

2e) Copies of the intimation given to Registrar of Companies/ Registrar (Punja b Societies) for proposed commercialization of SCL society and change of mandate from technical/scientific objectives to the commercialization objective. Also provide copy of approval taken or direction recieved from MEITY regarding the same.

2f) Copy of the acknowledgment recieved from Registrar of Companies/ Registrar (Punjab Societies) for proposed commercialization of SCL society.

2g) List of tools which costed more than 2Crore Rupees when acquired by SCL from Tower Semiconductor Israel.

2h) List of date of manufacturing and name of manufacturer and name of first owner/ second owner/third owner before SCL society, for the tools as in question 2g"

The CPIO, Semi-Conductor Laboratory, SAS Nagar vide letter dated 12.10.2022 replied as under:-
"Para 1(a) & 1(c):
The information sought is exempted from disclosure as per the voluntary disclosure made under section 4 (1) (b) (viii) of the RTI Act, 2005 by SCL on its website, the composition of SCL Society and SCL Management Council as mentioned therein has been disclosed and the Agenda/Minutes thereof are not open/accessible to public(Extract from the SCL website attached).
Para 1(b): The information is being compiled by the custodian of information and shall be provided in due course as and when received.
Para 2(a) to 2(f): The information is being compiled by the custodian of information and shall be provided in due course as and when received.
Para 2(g) to 2(1): No larger public interest warrants the disclosure of the disclosure of the information sought which is exempted as per Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. 2005.
Para 3 & 4: The information sought is available in public domain.
Para 5:
The information sought being voluminous, providing copies of the same will result in diverting the resources of Public Authority disproportionately and hence cannot be provided as per Section 7 (9) of RTI Act, 2005. However, you may inspect the relevant records for the required information at mutually agreeable date and time in the SCL, S.A.S. Nagar.
Para 6: The information is being compiled by the custodian of information and shall be provided in due course as and when received."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.11.2022. The FAA, SCL, SAS Nagar vide order dated 14.12.2022 stated as under:-

Page 2 of 4
"On going through the facts of the case, submissions made by the CPIO SCL, the present first appeal made by the appellant and the submissions made by the CPIO thereon, it is observed that the information provided by the CPIO is as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Wadhwa, CPIO, SCL The Complainant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation. However, a written submissions have been received from the Complainant vide letter dated Nil which has been taken on record.
Shri Manoj Kumar Wadhwa reiterated his written submission dated 16.05.2024 the relevant extracts of which are as under:
The appellant had sought information on various matters in 06 paras. The available information was provided to the appellant vide CPIO letter dated 12.10.2022 (Annexure 1). However, the information in respect of Para No. 1(b), 2(a - f) and Para 6 was being compiled by the Custodian of the information and the same was informed to the appellant as well. Accordingly, the information was provided to the appellant vide CPIO letter of the even number dated 12.12.2022 (Annexure V) which was sent to the address mentioned in the RTI application. However, the said letter was received back in this office on 27.12.2022 as the appellant had neither provided the complete postal address nor the contact number of the appellant. Therefore, it is submitted that the all the efforts were made to provide information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the contention that CPIO has failed to provide information even after months of delay is completely baseless.
4. PRAYER OF CPIO:
It is submitted that the all the efforts were made to provide information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, taking into consideration the facts stated under the preceding para, it is respectfully prayed that the Appeal may be dismissed being devoid of merit."
Decision:
In the light of the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided to the Complainant. Shri Manoj Kumar Wadhwa, CPIO, SCL is directed to forward a copy of his written submission dated 16.05.2024 to the Complainant for her perusal and necessary action.
Page 3 of 4
The Commission also observes that the instant matter is a Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission is only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to an unreasonable cause. Furthermore, the legal position with regard to the powers of the Commission u/s 18 is no longer res integra since the pronouncement of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. v. State of Manipur and Ors, CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P(C) No.32768- 32769/2010) decided on 12.12.2011 wherein it was held that Section 18 and 19 serve two different purposes and one cannot be a substitute for another.

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. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Complaint which is dismissed accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)