Central Information Commission
Rajesh Kumar Agrawal vs India Meteorological Department on 17 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/IMETD/C/2024/607079
Rajesh Kumar Agrawal .....Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
India Meteorological Department,
Meteorological Centre, Arera Hills,
Jail Road, Bhopal - 462011 India .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.07.2025
Date of Decision : 17.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 16.01.2024
CPIO replied on : 13.02.2024
First appeal filed on : Not on record.
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record.
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 16.01.2024 seeking the following information:
"Mc Bhopal कायालय से न न ल खत जानकार चा हए
1) एम ओ बैरागढ़ म कायरत ी आर के अ"वाल met a के $वारा मेमो वापस लेने संबंधी आवेद न जो 31 दसंबर 2023 को एम ओ बैरागढ़ म दया गया था उसे एम ओ बैरागढ़ से डाक $वारा -कस तार ख को आरएमसी नागपुर भेजा गया कृपया एम ओ बैरागढ़ के 1ड2पैच नंबर क3 जानकार 4दान कर Page 1 of 5
२) मौसम क8 भोपाल म कायरत सभी पु9ष वग अ;धकार एवं कमचार क3 2टे शन सी नया>रट अथात -कतने समय से मौसम क8 भोपाल म कायरत है एवं उनके पि@लक इंटरे 2ट पर कुल -कतने Bांसफर हुए इसक3 जानकार 4दान कर"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 13.02.2024 stating as under:
"Reply for question no 1 attached Encl. dated 23.01.2024 is as under
As per instructions received from MC Bhopal application of Shri R.K.Agrawal, Met-A, received on 01/01/2024 regarding cancellation of office-memo issued to him, was sent to M. C. Bhopal vide dispatch no. MO-BRG/12/P/002 dated 02/01/2024 by hand and vide e-office no. 125348/2024/MC Bhopal dated 02/01/2024, to forward to RMC Nagpur."
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, CPIO-cum-Scientist 'E', attended the hearing through VC.
4. The Complainant stated that he is posted as Meteorologist 'A' in the Respondent public authority. He added that the Respondent has not provided the information within stipulated timeframe as per the provisions of the RTI Act due to which the averred memo got recorded in his APAR.
5. The Respondent submitted that point No. 1 of the RTI Application pertains to AMO, Bairagarh, for which a reply has been given to the Complainant vide letter dated 13.02.2024, but inadvertently the reply was not in proper format as it was not containing the signature of the then CPIO Shri R Balasubramaniam, Scientist 'E', and also the details of First Appellate Authority (FAA) were left out and the same is highly regretted. He added that point No. 2 of the RTI Application pertains to RMC, Nagpur, for which a reply has been given to the Complainant vide letter dated 14.02.2024, informing as under:
"With reference to your above application on the above subject, the information asked has been received from concerned sections is enclosed herewith."Page 2 of 5
6. He added that their office has provided the information pertaining to dispatch number of AMO, Bairagarh, to the Complainant. He further volunteered to provide dispatch number of Bhopal office to the Complainant.
7. A written submission has been received from Complainant vide letter dated 03.07.2025, and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
" नवेदन है -क मDने दनांक 16-01-2024 को RTI आवेदन Eमांक IMETD/R/E/24/00031 के माFयम से यह जानकार मांगी थी -कः
1) " ी आर. के. अ"वाल (MET A) $वारा AMO बैरागढ़ कायालय म जो ऑ-फस मेमो वापस लेने हे तु आवेदन दनांक 31-12-2023 को 42तुत -कया गया था, उसे बैरागढ़ कायालय से डाक $वारा RMC नागपुर को -कस तार ख को भेजा गया, कृपया उसक3 1ड2पैच संKया (Dispatch Number) क3 जानकार बताई जाए।"
परं तु ऐसा 4तीत होता है -क जानकार दे ते समय मौसम क8 भोपाल के CPIO जो उस समय थे उनके $वारा Pबंद ु Eमांक 1 क3 द गई जानकार न न कारणR से Sामक, अधूर व नयम Uव9$ध 4तीत होता है मुKय आपUVयाँः
1. Pबंद ु Eमांक 1 -क RTI जानकार CPIO $वारा ह2ताX>रत न होने के कारण ऐसा 4तीत होता है -क जानकार अ4ामा णक (unauthenticated) है - RTI उVर पर CPIO (मुKय जन सूचना अ;धकार ) के ह2ताXर नह ं हD। यह उVर -कसी अZय अ;धकार $वारा ह2ताX>रत
-कया गया है, ।
2. मूल जानकार नह ं द गई है मDने जानकार मांगी थी -क बैरागढ़ कायालय से आवेदन डाक $वारा कब भेजा गया व उसका 1ड2पैच नंबर [या है। ले-कन जानकार म केवल यह लखा गया -क आवेदन को "by hand" और "e -office" के माFयम से भेजा गया। RTI म 2प]ट ^प से "डाक $वारा भेजे जाने" क3 जानकार मांगी गई थी, जो द ह नह ं गई।
3. कोई 1ड2पैच द2तावेज/4माण संल`न नह ं -कया गया केवल एक सामाZय Uववरण दया गया है, अतः स हत द2तावेज़ीय पुि]ट स हत जानकार मुझे 4दान क3 जाए।
4. 4थम अपील अ;धकार क3 जानकार नह ं द गई उVर म यह भी नह ं बताया गया
-क य द मD जानकार से असंतु]ट हूं तो -कस अ;धकार को 4थम अपील भेजूं।
5. ऐसा 4तीत होता है -क होता है -क सूचना को जानबूझकर अधूरा और S मत करके 42तुत -कया गया, ता-क मेर वैध जानकार को रोका जा सके, । 6 यह आवेदक के हत से जुड़ी हुई जानकार है । [यR-क आवेदक को दए हुए मेमो क3 कायालय >रकॉड अपार म एंB हुई है।
मेरा नवेदन Page 3 of 5
1. अतः मेरा नवेदन है -क संबं;धत. CPIO $वारा RTI म मांगी गई जानकार सट क, 4मा णत ^प म द जाए, िजसम डाक $वारा भेजने क3 त;थ, 1ड2पैच नंबर, तथा उसक3 4 त/साeय भी शा मल हो।
2. य द यह पाया जाए क3 सूचना म दे र , अधूर व S मत जानकार द गई है तथा यह आवेदक के हत से जुड़ी हुई जानकार है तो मान सक असुUवधा के लए मुझे धारा 19 (8) (b) के अंतगत उ;चत X तपू त (compensation) 4दान क3 जाए एवं नयम अनुसार कायवाह क3 जाए। इस हे तु मD आपका सदा आभार रहूंगा।"
8. A written submission has been received from Shri A.K Singh, CPIO vide letter dated 09.07.2025, a copy of the same has been served to the appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"1. The first question was pertaining to AMO, Bairagarh for which the reply was subsequently uploaded (Annexure-B) on RTI Online portal on 13.02.2024 by concerned CPIO i.e. CPIO, MC-Bhopal.
By mistake the reply uploaded was not in proper format as it was not containing the signature of CPIO/APIO, M.C. Bhopal and also the details of First Appellate Authority (FAA). It is highly regretted.
It is informed that the First Appellate Authority (at that time) was: Shri M.L. Sahu FAA & Scientist-F, Regional Meterological Center, India Meteorological Department, Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar International Airport, Sonegaon, Nagpur, Maharashtra 440005
2. The second question was pertaining to RMC, Nagpur that was already replied on 14.02.2024 by the concerned CPIO, RMC Nagpur (Annexure-C). As such, the information sought by the applicant, has already been provided to him."
Decision
9. The Commission observed that the present complaint is filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission is only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala fide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section 18 of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information Page 4 of 5 which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes
10. of performance are necessarily forbidden."
11. The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. It is observed that the relevant information as sought in the RTI Application has been given to the Complainant within stipulated timeframe. During the hearing, Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, CPIO-cum-Scientist 'E', has assured the Bench that he will provide the remaining information to the Complainant, hence, no mala fide on the part of the present CPIO is established, and no cause of action under the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, is warranted in the instant complaint. However, the CPIO is advised to fulfil his commitment made during the hearing.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)