Central Information Commission
Sandipan Hore vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 4 September, 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/DOATE/C/2023/637040
Shri Sandipan Hore निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Department of Atomic Energy
Date of Hearing : 02.09.2024
Date of Decision : 02.09.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 19.05.2023
PIO replied on : 01.06.2023
First Appeal filed on : 15.07.2023
First Appellate Order on : 24.07.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 30.07.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 19.05.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Vide communication dated 01.05.23 received to me on 06.05.23 I am informed that a communication is made from DAE to the office of MOS DAE vide the department communication dated 19.04.23, however the action taken at office of MoS DAE is not informed hence the reply against point number 4a and 4b is incomplete, so its requested to provide complete reply to me as to the action taken by the office of MoS DAE at the earliest."
The CPIO, Department of Atomic Energy vide letter dated 01.06.2023 replied as under:-
"Letter dated 19.04.2023 sent to Honble MoS, DAE shall be provided on payment of Rs. 20/- (10 x 2). However, for information on the action taken at the office of MoS, DAE, the RTI application is partially transferred to CPIO, Prime Minister Office."
Page 1 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 15.07.2023. The FAA vide order dated 24.07.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated Nil has been received from the Complainant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 23.08.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present Respondent: Mr. K. Vinod, US/Power/ CPIO- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Complainant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He further stated that the action taken at the office of MoS, DAE, the RTI application was partially transferred to CPIO, Prime Minister Office but reply to that part has not been furnished till date.
The Respondent stated that relevant information has been duly provided to the Complainant. He stated that vide letter dated 22.06.2023 CPIO/Power has communicated to Shri Sandipan Hore that Office of Hon'ble MoS vide email dated 23.01.2023 has had forwarded the grievance of Shri Sandipan Hore regarding OCES advertisement of 2009 of BARC for examination and appropriate disposal. Accordingly, the said grievance was examined in the Department and this Department vide Note No. 1001/1/2020- Power(Vol.II)/5099 dated 19.04.2023 has suitably apprised the office of Hon'ble MoS in the matter. As this Department has already examined and disposed of the grievance of Shri Hore, no action is warranted by the Office of Hon'ble MoS on letter dated 19.04.2023.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Page 2 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."
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 Page 3 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 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)