Central Information Commission
Ashutosh Khanna (Advocate) vs Forest Department Ut Of J & K on 29 April, 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
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/FDUJK/C/2023/604697
Shri Ashutosh Khanna (Advocate) निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Forest Department, UT of J & K
Date of Hearing : 23.04.2024
Date of Decision : 26.04.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.11.2022
PIO replied on : 07.12.2022
First Appeal filed on : 23.11.2022
First Appellate Order on : 14.12.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 31.01.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.11.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"1.Sh. Mohit Gera IFS, during his service almost remained on deputation & had not held any prime posting within JK Cadre. After coming back from deputation in 2019 during lockdown, he has joined as PCCF JK UT. The J&K Administration announced the Lt. Governor gold medal for honesty, integrity & meritorious public service for the year 2020 to Sh. Mohit Gera IFS PCCF JK. Staff & public are unaware about his contribution of during period. Kindly provide details of meritorious service executed by Sh. Mohit Gera IFS (available on representation/recommendation forwarded) for considering him for LG medal in public service of year 2020.
2.Pending enquiry of his office, Office of PCCF headed by Sh. Mohit Gera IFS through Forest Order No. 280 of 2022 dated: 27-10-2022 attached DFO Mohore & Forest Order No. 368 of 2021 dated: 24-11-2021 attached DFO Basoli forest division & handover charge of division to other DFO. Kindly inform/provide rule position whether Commissioner/Secretary to JK Govt., Deptt. Of forest, ecology & environment is only legally competent authority to place a DFO under posting/suspension/attachment (under pending enquiry) through a government order instead of PCCF through forest order. If, Office of PCCF headed by Sh. Mohit Gera IFS through Forest Order is not legally Page 1 competent authority, then such attachment & posting of DFO's, beyond jurisdiction, is clear case of favoritism & bad in eyes of law.
3.Office of PCCF JK headed by Sh. Mohit Gera IFS has not taken any action on forwarded forest damage report of CCF Jammu vide letter no. CCF/J/PS/333-34 dated:- 09-11-2020 against forest officer (involved DFO) but shockingly, in favoritism, PCCF office has given additional charge of Mahore district. Kindly inform/provide details of action taken by Sh. Mohit Gera IFS PCCF on forwarding report of CCF Jammu vide letter no. CCF/J/PS/333-34 dated:- 09-11-2020. If, no action (without any written reason) has been taken on such a sensitive report of CCF Jammu by PCCF & further, posting such a officer in sensitive division (already four DFO's suspended/attached) is clear case of favoritism & bad in eyes of law. Etc."
CPIO/Dy. Secretary, Forests, Environment & Ecology Department transferred the instant RTI Application to CPIO O/o Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests & HoFF vide letter dated 17.11.2022.
The CPIO, O/o Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests & HoFF vide letter dated 07.12.2022 replied as under:-
"1. No proposal was forwarded to Administrative Department by the 0/0 PCCF, J&K.
2. The relevant rules/ regulations are available in the website of General Administration Department websites and other of concerned departments.
3. The action was taken by the O/o PCCF and the proposal was submitted to Administrative Department vide No. PCCF/Estt/G/155 dated 18.11.2020.
4. The certified copies of the relevant notesheets enclosed as Annexure-A. No formal meeting was conducted.
5. The enquiry is under process.
6. The rule position can be ascertained in CSR/CCA available in website of the Government.
7. Regarding copy of the education qualification, the officer has retired and this information pertains to third party."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 23.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 14.12.2022 stated as under:-
"Now, therefore, taking into all aspects into consideration, the First Appeal preferred by the appellant has been considered and disposed off with the directions to CPIO, PCCF to provide copies of communication referred heretofore to the Appellant within next ten days from the date of issue of this order provided same may not fall within the restrictions of Section 8, 9 and 13 of the RTI Act, 2005."
In compliance of order of FAA, the PIO, O/o Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests & HoFF has furnished reply dated 22.12.2022 as under :
Page 2 This is reference above mentioned Communication received from the Additional Secretary to Government/First Appellate Authority, Forest. Ecology & Environment Department. Please find enclosed herewith information with regard, to CCA rules & Transfer policies. The remaining information le qualification certificate of Sh T.B Singh, IFS (Reld-CF) shall be provided to you as soon as it is received from concerned quarters.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 18.04.2024 has been received from the PIO, O/o Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests & HoFF and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
"...Please refer your office above quoted Notice of Hearing. In this regard, it is to inform you that the said RTI Application was received by this office on 12.11.2022 and the same was forwarded to the Personnel Officer O/o Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests (HOFF), J&K, Jammu vide U.O. No. PCCF/RTI/FN.897/530-31 dated 14.11.2022 in terms of Section 5(4) & 5(5) of RTI Act, 2005 for obtaining of requisite information sought by the applicant, in response, the Personnel Officer O/o Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF). J&K. Jammu has furnished the requisite information vide U.O. No. PCCF/G/1840 dated 06.12.2022 (Copy enclosed) and the said information was forwarded to the Information seeker vide this office letter No. PCCF/RTI/FN.897/565-66 dated 07.12.2022 (copy enclosed). The applicant le, Sh. Ashutosh Khanna, Advocate has filed a First Appeal to the Administrative Department (Forest).
However, the Administrative Department (Forest) has issued an order under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 vide communication No. FST- RTI/69/2022-02-Forest Department dated 14.12.2022 with the directions to CPIO. PCCF to provide copies of communication referred heretofore to the Appellant within next ten days from the date of issue of the order.
The requisite information with regard, to CCA rules and transfer policies forwarded to the Appellant vide this office letter No. PCCF/RTI/FN.897/592-93 dated 22.12.2022 (copy enclosed)..."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Kuldeep Raj, CPIO, O/o Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests & HoFF and Mr. Suhail Ul Islam, Deputy Secretary Forests, Environment & Ecology Department participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Complainant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him within stipulated time frame. He further stated that the PIO Forests, Environment & Ecology Department has not furnished the information as sought.
Page 3 The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly furnished to the Appellant. They further stated a point-wise reply has been furnished to the Appellant within stipulated time frame.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act . Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...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."
xxx "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."
Page 4
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."
xxx "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 complaints 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.
Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)