Central Information Commission
Prakashchand Chhaganmalji Jain vs Central Information Commission on 2 March, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/CICOM/C/2019/101131
In the matter of:
Prakashchand Chhaganmalji Jain
... Complainant
VS
CPIO/ RTI Cell
Central Information Commission
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi - 110 067
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 05/11/2018 CPIO replied on : 27/11/2018 First appeal filed on : Not on Record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record Complaint filed on : 04/01/2019 Date of Hearing : 01/03/2021 Date of Decision : 01/03/2021 The following were present: Complainant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri Ram Kumar, Section Officer, RTI Cell, CPIO, present over VC at CIC.
Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the status of action taken & result on his reply dated 09/10/2018 received in the Commission vide Diary No. 162711 dated 16/10/2018.
2. Provide the status of action taken & result on his reply dated 06/09/2018 received in the Commission vide Diary No 155773 dated 11/09/2018.
Grounds for filing Complaint The appellant is aggrieved with the reply given by an official of CIC other than Mr. S.C. Sharma, Dy. Registrar.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply. The CPIO submitted that the similar subject matter was already adjudicated on 16.02.2021 vide case no. CIC/CICOM/C/2019/103866.
Observations:
It was noted that the following order was passed by the same bench on 16.02.2021 in respect of complaint no. CIC/CICOM/C/2019/103866:
"The complainant submitted that penal action may be taken against the concerned persons for not handling his RTI application properly. The Commission is also in receipt of written submissions dated 12.02.2021 received on 16.02.2021 wherein the appellant had objected to the fact that he was not given enough time to file his written submissions as it was mentioned in the notice that any reply/submissions are to be filed before 07 days from the date of hearing, however, he has received the notice only on 09.02.2021. He had also submitted that one of his complaints dated 21.01.2019 was not taken on record and only the present RTI application was registered. The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 27.11.2018. Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that initially the RTI application was forwarded to the concerned CPIO vide letter dated 26.11.2018 for sending a reply to the complainant. It is further noted that vide letter dated 19.09.2018, the complainant was informed about the action taken on one of his letters referred to in the above mentioned RTI application. It is further noted that a point-wise reply was given to the complainant on 27.11.20108 by virtue of which he was duly informed that no action was taken on either of his letters as under the RTI Act there is no provision of review. The Commission is unable to find any flaw in the reply so given as the complainant was duly informed about the action taken on his letters. It is further noted that basically the complainant is aggrieved as he had requested that his complaint case which was already disposed off by some other bench of the Commission should be registered afresh as a second appeal and the same should be heard by a larger bench of three Information Commissioners and when he had addressed his RTI application to Shri S C Sharma, why it was forwarded to Shri Haro Prasad Sen. In this regard, it is brought to the notice of the complainant that Chief Information Commissioner has the authority to allocate the cases to different Benches/Commissioners being the master of the roster. The appellant cannot on his own decide who will hear his case and who not. In this regard, attention is drawn to the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2021 in Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 1 of 2020. The relevant para is extracted below:
"We see no valid and good ground for recusal by one of us. Merely because the order might not be in favour of the applicant earlier, cannot be a ground for recusal. A litigant cannot be permitted to browbeat the Court by seeking a Bench of its choice. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant petitioner in person that one of us (Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.) should recuse from hearing the present miscellaneous application is not accepted and the said prayer is rejected."
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission is not able to find any flaw in the reply given to the complainant and hence the complaint is not established."
Decision:
The Commission noted that the identical matter was adjudicated by this bench on 16.02.2021 in case File No. CIC/CICOM/C/2019/103866. As such, this case has become infructuous.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date