Central Information Commission
Sanjay Chandekar vs National Film Archives Of India (Nfai) on 30 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NFAOI/C/2022/655641
Sanjay Chandekar ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Film Archives of India,
RTI Cell, Law College Road,
Pune - 411004, Maharashtra. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31/05/2023
Date of Decision : 31/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 09/08/2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 10/10/2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17/10/2022
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.08.2022 seeking the following information:1
"1. The names & designations of ONLY Presiding Officers nominated by the employer and who are Contractual Employees & Not Permanent Employees from 2013 till today on the Internal Committees under each of the ONLY FOLLOWING 18 offices of MoIB.
2. The names & designation of ONLY Presiding Officers nominated by the employer on the Internal Committees under all All India Radio Stations in Maharashtra & Doordarshan Kendra s of Prasar Bharati of MoIB in Maharashtra only.
3. Please provide all the Orders of Constituting an Internal Committee with names & Designations of All the Members on the Internal Committees of ONLY FOLLOWING 18 ORGANISATIONs.
1. BECIL
2. BOC (DAVP)
3. CBFC
4. CFSI
5. DFF
6. EMMC
7. Films Division
8. IIMC
9. NFAI
10. NFDC
11. New Media Wing
12. PRASAR BHARATI's All India Radio Stations & DD Kendras only in Maharashtra
13. Press Council of India
14. Press Information Bureau
15. Principal Accounts Office MIO I & B
16. Publications Division
17. Registrar of News Papers of India
18. SRFTI
4. Please specify the Maximum Legal Tenure of the Each IC Member Specifically."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 10.10.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
2The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Shri Jainuladeen, Manager present through Video-Conference.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Complainant while reiterating the contents of his RTI application expressed his dissatisfaction that relevant information has not been provided to him till date. He harped on the fact that he has sought specific information in his RTI application but no information was provided to him. He further submitted that his first appeal was also not disposed of by the FAA.
The Respondent, during the hearing, submitted that the original RTI application and first appeal of the Complainant were not received in their office. They came to know about the present RTI application and first appeal when they received the hearing notice from the Bench of this Commission. The Respondent further apprised the Commission that as soon as they received the RTI application of the Complainant, on 29.05.2023, complete point-wise reply/information was provided to the Complainant.
Decision:
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission observes from a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties that the core contention of the Complainant in the instant Complaint was non-receipt of information within stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act. In response to it, the CPIO explained that the original RTI application and first appeal of the Complainant were not received in their office records. Nonetheless, soon after receiving with the hearing notice of the Commission, on 29.05.2023, point-wise reply was provided to the Complainant.
Thus, considering the above said contesting claims of the parties, the present CPIO is directed to file an affidavit with the Commission with a copy of it duly endorsed to the Complainant, free of cost deposing categorically that his original RTI application and first appeal were not received / traceable in his office. The said affidavit should reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Respondent is further directed to again send a copy of their reply dated 29.05.2023 along with the affidavit to the Complainant.3
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 malafides 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 showcause 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...."
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 4