Central Information Commission
R K Mittal vs National Medical Commission (Nmc) on 21 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/2024/617590
Shri R K MITTAL निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
National Medical Commission (NMC)
Date of Hearing : 08.08.2024
Date of Decision : 08.08.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 18.03.2024
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : - -
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.03.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"Kindly refer to my RTI application no NMCND/R/E/24/00344 WRONGLY forwarded to MoHFW for following reasons:
(i) Public authority inviting Public feed back is NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & not MoHFW
(ii) Public Authority presently in possession of this information is NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSIONS & not MoHFW
(iii) MoHFW has categorically stated that their CPIO is not in possession of any such information Kindly note that RTI applications can ONLY be forwarded to other Public Authorities ONLY IF THE INFORMATION ASKED IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF PUBLIC AUTHRITY to which RTI application is addressed.
Page 1 This clause is meant to be used ONLY IF the Public Authority to which RTI application is addressed IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF INFORMATION ASKED.
Kindly note that similar information was provided to me by NCISM & NCH without waiting for finalisation of regulations under RTI act Kindly note that RTI act is same for NCISM NCH & NMC It is therefore once again requested to kindly provide information asked instead of forwarding it to other Public Authorities by MISUSING provisions of RTI act despite you yourself being in possession of information asked."
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
PIO furnished reply dated 09.04.2024 as under :
lt is reiterated that MoHFW have vide their letter dt. 22.01.2024 (copy attached) directed to upload the link to Coogle Form developed by them on the website of NMC for obtaining feedback from public with regard to conduct of NExT Examination and accordingly. NMC uploaded the Public Notice with the link to the Google Form and the ownership as well as backend of the Google Form is held by MoHFW and NMC has no access to the data received therein. Accordingly, the earlier RTI No. NMCND/R/24/00344 dated: 20.03.2034 had been transferred to CPIO, MoHFW for providing information to the RTI applicant.
2. There is no change as on date in the position with regard to the ownership of the said Coogle Form as well as the backend information public feedback received therein and no information public feedback is in possession of the undersigned CPIO. l. Since, the above information may be available with MoHFW, this RTI application is also being transferred to CPIO- MoHFW for providing information to the RTI applicant.
Written submission dated 30.07.2024 has been received from the CPIO, and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
The RTI application No.NMCND/R/E 12024100553 was submitted by the applicant to NMC although another earlier RTI application No.NMCND/R/E 1202400344 on similar matter has been Written submission of information transferred to MoHFW on 27 .02.2024 AS blic comments the Goo e form has been sought by the MoHFW for the DGHs-
Page 2 headed committee on NExT examination, and the information in this regard is available with MoHFW. The status of the same was already available with the applicant. As the fresh RI'I application No.NMCND/R/E12024100553 on the same matter was received, a detailed reply dated 08.05.2024 was sent to the applicant on 09.05.2024 through RTI portal clarifying that NMC has no access to the data/public feedback received in the Google form as MoHFW have the back-end of the Google form and MoHFW has only asked NMC to upload the public notice rvith link to Google form for seeking comments from public. The RTI has also been transferred to MoHFW on 09.05 .2024 Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. K. Srinidhi, US, NMC, Mr. Subodh Kumar, NMC, Ms. Vishaka Gautam, SO(Vigilance)/CPIO, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, SO, NMC and Ms. Leena George, US, UGMEB- participated in the hearing.
A combined written submission has been received from the Complainant with respect to all his cases listed today for hearing stating that the Respondent has not served any written submission and in case NMC fails to submit the written submission, a week before the hearing, he has sought rescheduling the hearing at least 7 days after the written submission is served on him.
The Complainant reiterated the averments made in his written submission and stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him within stipulated time frame.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that as per function and powers of UGMEB provided in NMC Act, 2019, conduct of NEXT does not come under the purview of UGMEB. Furthermore, since UGMEB is not the actual custodian of the information sought and the requisite information is not available with the Board.
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.
Page 3 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."
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."
"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 4 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 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)