Central Information Commission
Rajwanth T N vs Dr. Ambedkar Foundation on 8 March, 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/DRAMF/C/2023/607211
Shri Rajwanth T N निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Dr. Ambedkar Foundation ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 08.03.2024
Date of Decision : 08.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07.01.2023
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : Nil
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.01.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"I, Rajwanth T N from Bangalore Karnataka, married Suma Madhavan from Kannur, Kerala on 17/02/2019. I belong to SC category (Adi Karnataka) and my wife belongs to Open category (Varriar). We applied for Dr. Ambedkar Scheme for Social Integration through Inter- Caste Marriage benefit within 1yr of marriage (one of the prerequisites). Since SWD Karnataka Bangalore branch refused to help/guide to acquire Recommendation letter from DC/DM office in Bangalore even after numerous approaches, we emailed to DAF on 21/12/2019 (attached) seeking help on the same. But we never got any reply. We sent application to DAF and application was received by Foundation on 27/01/2020 i.e., within one year of marriage.
We sent the hard copy of application and documents thrice, 1st in January 2020, 2nd in March 2021 & 3rd in July 2022.
DAF after examining application, sent acknowledgment/recommendation request letter to DC office in Bir in June 2020. We kept visiting DC office in Page 1 of 4 Bir whenever possible as there were Covid restrictions. However letter was misplaced by DC office staff.
Since the document could not be found, we requested DAF to send another acknowledgment/recommendation request letter to DC office in Blr. DAF then sent attached acknowledgment letter F.No. 37- 153/2021/DAF dated 01/04/2021 to DC office in Bir. We constantly visited DC office and were directed to SWD Bangalore to get NOC and then back to DC office. It took almost a year to get the recommendation letter from DC office.
The DC recommendation letter was sent from DC office Bangalore to DAF in Feb 2022.
We contacted DAF again numerous times to know the status of our application. We received reply from DAF on 24/11/2022 that our application doesn'tmeet the eligibility criteria of sending application within one year of marriage.
Please note that point 3 of the acknowledgment F.No. 37-153/2021/DAF dated 01/04/2021 to DC office states: The Foundation has received a proposal on 27/01/2020 (within one year of the marriage of couple) from Shri Rajwanth T N and Smt Suma Madhavan of Bangalore South. On examining the paper, this office has found that the proposal needs recommendation of the concerned authority as such, it is being sent out to your office with the request that your comments/recommendation on the proposal may please be forwarded to office so that it can be processed for further.
DAF would not have sent the acknowledgment letter if we didnt meet eligibility criteria. So, to state that application was not received within one year of marriage is inaccurate.
Please note that DAF had sent recommendation letter to DC office twice without above said criteria issue. It can't be a mistake. We have put so much of our time & money in getting the recommendation letter from DC office Bangalore as DAF had sent letter to DC office. Rules for the scheme may have changed over the period. We want DAF to abide by the rules/t&c when the application was sent and to release the incentive as per the scheme."
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Present through video conference Page 2 of 4 Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Singh - Consultant was present during hearing. Both parties are heard and reiterated their respective contentions as mentioned in the documents hereinabove. The Respondent stated that the Applicant had been duly informed vide reply dated 28.02.2023 that his application had not been received in the office within one year of marriage and thus it did not meet the eligibility criteria as per Para 5 of Part III (Eligibility) and as such the same cannot be accepted as per the extant guidelines of the Scheme.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the records of the case and after hearing the averments of the parties it is noted that germane information about the Applicant's application had been duly sent to the Complainant, from available on record and as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act. It is noted that though the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, no information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been sought by him in the RTI application. In the given circumstances, the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. From the deliberation between parties, it appears that the Respondent had sent responses based on information available on record with them, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case.
It is pertinent to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...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."
In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that since information was provided by the Respondent suffers no legal infirmity, there is no deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent in this case. Hence, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is required.
The case is disposed off as such.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालालसामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4