Central Information Commission
A P Devnani vs Food Corporation Of India on 29 January, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/FCIND/C/2024/100701
Shri A P DEVNANI शिकायतकताा /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रशतवादीगण /Respondent
Food Corporation of India
Date of Hearing : 23.01.2025
Date of Decision : 23.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.04.2023
PIO replied on : 10.05.2023
First Appeal filed on : 23.10.2023
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 29.12.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.04.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"1.The SRC Ltd. had sold 6 bungalows at Adipur to FCI on specific conditions to use them only for residential purpose, Bungalows were number 22,23,24,25,, 26, and 27, Three employees were staying with family in respective bungalows namely by S/श्री रघुबीर स िंघ, bungalow number 25:
LU सिक्यानी number 27 and my self number 24.
Three of us all of a sudden ordered by the joint Manager Gandhidham to vacate respective bungalows, Vide order number: Genl/4/3/96.97dt 10/15.3.97 without showing reason to vacate and no specific time limit was given, I had knocked the door of Hble Gujarat High court in 1997.98 against said_ illegal/unfair/arbitrary order as jt manager had threatened to recover Rs 5000/7500 per month if not vacated, FCI gave its defence on oath in court that FCI wanted bungalows vacated because the Jt Manager's Gandhidham office was to be shifted to said bungalows as FCI was in huge loss if bungalows not vacated immediately, Shri रघुबीर स िंघ first did not obey order, he vacated later on, I vacated in 1998, after said court case Tikyani had not vacated even after retirement, He vacated after about 4 years from retirement, Page 1 I hereby under RTI act demand the inspection of all record related to said bungalows right from their purchase from SRC and allotment to we all said three employees upto vacating respective bungalow and record pertaining to shifting of Gandhidham office to said bungalows as cited above, including details about court cases in this regard, (details means what FCI took stand to get bungalows vacated and proofs about FCI could use those residential bungalows for any other purpose than they had purchased them on specific condition from SRC to use only for residential purpose, whether FCI had taken permission to do so from GDA, Municipal authority etc,) It is to say, it is my fundamental right to know all facts whether High court was given false information, on what basis there was discrimination in imposing penal house rent on we three said employees etc I also hereby declare that FCI has never given such information to me earlier, otherwise you should give its copy to avoid loss of time I am prepared to give charges for such copies, It will be your responsibility if you will denial such vital information under flimsy ground, 'necessary to state that the then jt manager Gandhidham had formed one committee to give opinion etc about shfting Gandhidham office to said bungalows for which I was totally in dark, Such record is very important to know whether High Court was kept in dark, All such information can be collected by inspection of record, The GDA/Municipality Authority had objected about use of bungalows as office purpose, they gave notice to FCI and the then Jt Manager had assured them to vacate office long back but still not vacated, hence all this serious matter can be seen by inspection of record besides the HQ vigilance had also investigated the matter in Sept 1997 but report was supressed to protect corrupt system in FCI, hence all this can be proved on basis of inspection of record."
The CPIO, Food Corporation of India, Adipur, Kutch vide letter dated 10.05.2023 replied as under:-
"Information sought by you are too old approx. 26 years as this office is take every efforts to trace out the same and will be intimated to you for inspection of records as and when traced out."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 23.10.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present Respondent: Shri Kamal Kumar Sahu, Manager Page 2 Mr. Ashok Devnani vide his online RTI application dated 11.04.2023 had sought information under the RTI Act, 2005 from Central Public Information Officer of FCI DO Gandhidham. The CPIO had furnished her reply vide letter dated 10.05.2023 stating that the information desired by the applicant is not readily available and it will require time to trace out the relevant information since the desired information is more than 26 years old. Shri Ashok Devnani vide his email dated 21.09.2023 had again requested the CPIO to provide the information desired vide his RTI application dated 11.04.2023. In response to this, CPIO had furnished the information as per the records available under her control vide letter dated 03.10.2023. Shri Ashok Devnani vide his email dated 23.10.2023 has filed First Appeal against the reply dated 03.10.2023 furnished by CPIO.
The FAA held that the CPIO had furnished all the information available. Further FAA relied on the circular No.10-4(24)/79-OMISS dated 25/07/1984- 18/08/1984 issued by FCI, HQ, New Delhi regarding retention period of files/ records. Since the information desired by the applicant pertains to House Keeping section, relevant portion of the aforesaid circular regarding retention period of files/ records of House Keeping Section was also pursued. While going through Point 1 Accommodation Sub Para (ii) and (iii), it is clearly observed that files related to allocation of residential accommodation is to be preserved for 3 years and fires/ records related to land requisition of private premises for official use are to be preserved for 3 years after expiry of lease contract. Hence, the position appraised by CPIO vide her letter dated 10.05.2023 that the desired information/ records are more than 26 years old and records of DO Adipur were weeded out in phased manner is in line with the above cited circular. Further, the CPIO had also provided copies of all the available records to the applicant vide her letter dated 03.10.2023. As per provisions of RTI Act, CPIO is supposed to provide the information/documents as per available records/ documents only.
The CPIO further submitted that no information has been concealed.
Decision:
Upon examining the facts of the case, it is noted that the queries raised by the Complainant had been appropriately responded by the Respondent, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
In view of the fact that the queries raised by the Complainant has been duly answered and the Complainant has chosen to file this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which is left for adjudication is whether there was any wilful concealment of information. From the records of the case at hand and averments of the Respondent, it appears that the Respondent has sent information available on records thereby negating any attempt at deliberate suppression of information. Considering the fact that the information furnished by the Respondent is in consonance with the terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and did not suffer from any legal infirmity, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the Page 3 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:
"...30. ...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 Page 2 Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
In the given circumstances, in the absence of wilful or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent in this case, the Commission finds no ground for further action under Section 18 of the RTI Act in this case.
The case is disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाशणत सत्याशित प्रशत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. शिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)