Central Information Commission
Kusum Choudhary vs National Human Rights Commission on 2 December, 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/NHRCM/C/2023/620418
Ms. Kusum Choudhary निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
National Human Rights Commission
Date of Hearing : 28.11.2024
Date of Decision : 28.11.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07.11.2022
PIO replied on : 14.11.2022
First Appeal filed on : 12.12.2022
First Appellate Order on : 12.01.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.11.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"I filed a complaint with nhrc case no- 6795/30/7/2021 i attached the pdf for the same in the application I received the reply from nhrc dated 19/05/2022 that the chargsheet has been filed for the same complaint but the reply is incomplete so i want to know the following individually -
1) ATR(action taken report) against the police officials namely Insp Surinder sandhu, Insp meena yadav, Asi sunita and Si gayatri as the commission didnt mention anything regarding them for their misconduct and for their demand of bribe Rs 400000 which is a heinous crime.
2) Provide me the FIR copy and the court name or number of the case which is pending trial against those police officials namely
- Insp Surinder sandhu, Insp meena yadav, Asi sunita and Si gayatri. As per the authority who submitted the report to nhrc that charge sheet has been filed in court."
Page 1 The CPIO, National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi vide letter dated 14.11.2022 replied as under:-
Point No. 1 & 2:-"As per CMS, the Commission's directions dated 19.5.2022 in case no. 6795/30/7/2021 are self explanatory.
The report dated 16.2.2022 (2 pages) received from DCP, Vigilance, Delhi in the matter is also enclosed for information. The complainant, if still aggrieved, may visit the Commission with prior appointment with the PIO and inspect the scanned copies of the file and take the copies of documents as she desires."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2022. The FAA vide order dated 12.01.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 18.11.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, SO and Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Assistant- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Appellant. They stated that action on the complaint of the Complainant has been duly provided to the Complainant and inspection of record was also offered to her 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 Page 2 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."
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...."
Page 3 Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint 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 (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)