Central Information Commission
Naresh Kadyan vs Khadi & Village Industries Commission on 20 March, 2025
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/KVICO/C/2024/654452
Shri Naresh Kadyan निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Khadi & Village Industries Commission ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.03.2025
Date of Decision : 18.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 18.09.2024
PIO replied on : 17.10.2024
First Appeal filed on : 18.10.2024
First Appellate Order on : 28.10.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 10.12.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"Community Policing in good faith as scouting for Khadi Mark Regulations, 2013 - Conflict of Interest: Supply copies with present status of all circulars, notifications and guidelines to regulate, along with punishments for violations, related to:
1. Constitution of Committees and its functions, with their impact being - avoiding conflict of interest.
2. All copies of Composition of Central Khadi Mark Committee and Zonal Khadi Mark Committees, along with their tenure in office as per regulation 12: Term of office of Chairperson and members of Committees, with their impact being - avoiding conflict of interest.
3. All copies of agenda with the minutes, related to Composition of Central Khadi Mark Committee and Zonal Khadi Mark Committees, along with copies of head wise expenditure for functioning of Khadi Mark Committees.
4. Supply copies to authorize person, who made nomination appointments of Khadi Mark Committees, all berth holders."Page 1 of 3
The CPIO, Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Mumbai vide letter dated 17.10.2024 replied as under:-
P. No. 1- "This information is available on KVIC Website- KRDP Portal. P. No. 2- Circular No. DKC/Policy/Const. CKMC/2023-24/93 dated 27.10.2023 is enclosed.
P. No. 3- Ans. The requested information is vague in nature. P. No.4-Ans.:- Please see point No.2."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 18.10.2024. The FAA vide order dated 28.10.2024 stated that the information has already been furnished to the complainant. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 28.02.2025 has been received from CPIO reiterating the above aforementioned facts mentioning the replies sent to the Complainant. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Complainant: Not present Respondent: Smt. Pranita Tamhane - Director was present during hearing through video conference.
Respondent alone was present during hearing and stated that appropriate response had been duly furnished to the Complainant in terms of provisions of the RTI Act, apprising him that information sought by him was not available with the public authority.
Decision:
Perusal of the records of the case and averments of the Respondent present during hearing reveal that appropriate response has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Complainant has chosen not to attend the hearing. Since the Complainant has approached the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. Records of the case reveal that the Respondent had sent the information, following due course of law as envisaged under the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case. It is worthwhile to refer to 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. 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 Page 2 of 3 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...."
In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that information provided by the Respondent suffers from no legal infirmity and neither any case of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent is found in this case. Hence, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is required.
The case is disposed off 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 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)