Central Information Commission
R K Mittal vs National Medical Commission (Nmc) on 16 August, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/NMCOM/C/2023/609558
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NMCOM/A/2023/609676
Shri R K Mittal ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, National Medical Commission (NMC) ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.08.2024
Date of Decision : 12.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint/appeal:
Case No. RTI Filed CPIO reply First FAO 2nd Appeal
on appeal /Complainant
received on
609558 13.12.2022 -- 12.01.2023 08.02.2023 19.02.2023
609676 13.12.2022 -- 12.01.2023 08.02.2023 20.02.2023
[Both cases arise out of the same RTI application and bear the same facts,
and hence are clubbed together for the purpose of ease of adjudication]
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/NMCOM/C/2023/609558 (2) CIC/NMCOM/A/2023/609676 The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
1. ENTIRE FILE/FOLIO in which NMC letter No NMC/Secy/2020/06 dated 1.12.2020 (Copy enclosed) is filed
2. ENTIRE FILE/FOLIO in which NMC letter No NMC/Secy/2020/06/25015 dated 2.12.2020 (as mentioned in letter mentioned under point 4 below, last para) is filed
3. ENTIRE FILE/FOLID in which MoHFW letter No V.11025/249/2020-MEP dated 14.12.2022 (as mentioned in letter mentioned under point 4 below, first para) is filed Page 1 of 4
4. ENTIRE FILE/FOLID in which NMC letter No A-11017/01/EXCELL/2021-
NMC(Admin) 002233 dated 15.01.2021 (Copy enclosed) is filed
5. ENTIRE FILE/FOUD in which PMO ID note no 358800/PMO/2021-SW dated 30.11.2021 (as mentioned in letter mentioned under point 7 below, first para) is filed 6 ENTIRE FILE/FOUD in which MoHFW letter No V:11013/05/2021-ME-1 (P14) (8126062) dated 6.12.2021 (as mentioned in letter mentioned under pont 7 below, as Ref) is filed 7 ENTIRE FILE/FOLIO in which NMC letter No A-11017/01/EXCELL/2021- NMC(Admin) dated 17.12.2021 (Copy enclosed) is filed & ENTIRE FILE/FOLIO in which NMC letter No NMC/DS(NMC)/Misc/2022-438 dated 12.08.2022 (Copy enclosed) is filed
9. ENTIRE FILE/FOLIO in which MoHFW letter No V:11025/321/2022-MEP dated 29.8.2022 (Copy enclosed) is filed 10 ENTIRE FILE/FOLIO in which MoHFW letter No V 11025/321/2022-MEP dated 5.9.2022 (Copy enclosed) is filed
11. ENTIRE FILE/FOLIO in which NMC letter No NMC/DS(NMC)/Misc/2022- 434/037730-33 dated 6.9.2022 (Copy enclosed) is filed 12 ENTIRE FILE/FOLIO in which MoHFW letter No V.11025/321/2022-MEdated 12.9.2022 (Copy enclosed) is filed 13 ENTIRE FILE/FOLIO in which MoHFW letter No V. 11013/05/2021-ME-1- Part(4) dated 3.11.2022 (Copy enclosed) is filed. Please note that I do not merely want copy of above letters. I want copy of ENTIRE FILE/ENTIRE FOLIO in which above letters are filed physically/electronically with NMC/UGMEB"
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information received from the CPIO, the Complainant/Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 08.02.2023 held as under:-
Point No. 1:-"A general file containing various such letters issued from then Or Secretary, NMC is available with C Secretary NMC Applicant can inspect the file Point No. 2:-A general file containing various such letters issued from O/o Secretary, NMC is available with O/o Secretary, NMC. Applicant can inspect the file.
Point No.3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 & 13:-File does not pertain to NMC Point No. 4 & 7:-File not found Point No. 8:-Annexure-A attached Point No. 11:- Annexure-B attached 3 Further, the draft regulation in respect of NEXT has been uploaded in public domain can be accessed at URL: https://www.nmc.org.in/information-
desk/all-news/."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant/Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint/Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
An undated combined written submission has been received from the Appellant/Complainant regarding all his cases listed today for hearing stating Page 2 of 4 that the Respondent has not served any written submission to him. He further stated that NMC be instructed to give their written submission atleast 7 days in advance and provide copy thereof to the to the Applicant; and in case NMC fails to submit the written submission, a week before the hearing, he has sought rescheduling the hearing atleast 7 days after the written submission is served on him.
A written submission dated 01.08.2024 has been received from CPIO reiterating the above facts.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant/Complainant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri K. Srinidhi - US, NMC; Shri Subodh Kumar, NMC; Smt. Vishaka Gautam - SO(Vigilance)/CPIO; Shri Pradeep Kumar- SO, NMC and Smt. Leena George - US, UGMEB were present during hearing. The Appellant/Complainant was heard wherein he stated that he was not satisfied with the reply sent by the Respondent. He contended that though he had sought copies of files, he had been given inspection of files. The Appellant/Complainant contended that the reply of the Respondent was false and misleading and enquiry should be conducted with respect to the same. The Respondent on the other hand stated that PIO had furnished information which was available in their records and granted inspection of records where the information was not available in a compiled manner, but existed in the general file, so that he can trace the same as per his requirement.
Decision:
Perusal of the records of the aforementioned cases indicate that information available on records as per the Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and permissible under the RTI Act, has been duly provided by the Respondent. Considering the fact that with respect to two of the queries, inspection of files has also been provided, the Applicant is at liberty to obtain the information upon inspection of records. The Respondent cannot be made liable to furnish information which does not pertain to it as per the RTI Act.
CIC/NMCOM/C/2023/609558 The Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, wherein the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. From the records of the case at hand and deliberation between parties, it appears that the Respondent had sent information available on records, well within the mandate of the law. 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 or lacunae response based on information available on record with them, therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case.Page 3 of 4
To understand the scope of a Complaint filed under the RTI Act, it is pertinent to refer to 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:
"...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 Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
In the given circumstances, the Commission finds that in the absence of any wilful or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case.
CIC/NMCOM/A/2023/609676 Since appropriate information has already been furnished in this case, as noted hereinabove, no further intervention is warranted under the RTI Act.
The cases are disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) 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)