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/2024/611955
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 : 20.02.2024
PIO replied on : 27.02.2024
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 20.02.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"Kindly provide copy of all public feedback received in response including google form report in soft copy to my email address [email protected] Alternatively, you can also provide them in physical form & i am ready to bear all expanses.
Kindly also refer to your letter no C-
21011/45/22/NMC/Coord/025014-16 dated 04.05.2023 where in similar information was denied as NMC feared that i will misuse the same to lobby through print media etc to put pressure on NMC to bring out the final next Regulations in particular form which may suit to a particular group.
Page 1 I undertake not to go to media with this information as that seems to be precondition of NMC to maintain comfortable levels of NON TRANSPARANCY.
Kindly note that NCISM & NCH expressed no such fear while providing similar information. May be NCISM & NCH do not have habit of working under pressure while NMC has habit to work under various pressures from Modern Medicine Medical Mafia & IMA and therefore fear even legitimate demands being put forth by public as pressure.
Non disclosure of information at that stage led to a highly discriminatory NExT regulations & peoples voice was suffocated leading to huge outcry which made even published next Regulations NULL & VOID & forced you to open the same for further public feedback, ultimately delaying NEXT for almost an year, which may be your ultimate objective.
It is hoped that this time NMC becomes as transparent as NCISM & NCH who had no hesitation in making public comments public even before finalisation of their regulations, gave ample opportunity to public to represent to higher authorities, addressed all public opposition, were open to all criticism & therefore finalised their regulations even before NMC could.
In case the information is denied looking to your past habit of non transparent working, specific section number of RTI under which it is denied must be clearly mentioned in order."
The CPIO, National Medical Commission (NMC) vide letter dated 27.02.2024 transferred the RTI application to the Department of Health & Family Welfare for providing the information.
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 30.07.2024 has been received from the CPIO, Policy and Co-ordination and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
The RTI application No.NMCND/R/E 12024100344 was submitted seeking comments through Google form from public/stakeholders in response to public notice dated 24.01.2024. Since the public notice was issued on the directions of MoHFW, the same was transferred to CPIO, Department of Health & Family Welfare on 27.02.2024 citing that as the matter of conduct of NExT examination is under consideration of the committee under DGHS constituted by MoHFW and the public comments have been sought by MoHFW through Google Page 2 form, the RTI application is transferred to CPIO & us (MEP), MoHFW. It is further clarified that NMC has neither the information on the comments received from public/stakeholders through the Google form nor the back-end of the Google form. NMC has issued the public notice with link to Google form on the directions of MoHFW. This has also been clarified to Shri R.K. Mittal earlier.
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 their 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 NMC has issued the public notice with link to Google form on the directions of MoHFW. It was further submitted that as the matter of conduct of NExT examination is under consideration of the committee under DGHS constituted by MoHFW and the public comments have been sought by MoHFW through Google form, the RTI application has been transferred to CPIO & US (MEP), MoHFW. Furthermore, NMC has neither the information on the comments received from public/stakeholders through the Google form nor the back-end of the Google form.
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."
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 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)