Central Information Commission
Dr P S Deshmukh vs Central Institute For Research On ... on 3 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/CIRCT/C/2024/604382
Dr P S Deshmukh. ...निकायतकताग/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Central Institute for Research on Cotton ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Technology
Date of Hearing : 27.02.2025
Date of Decision : 27.02.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01.01.2024
PIO replied on : NA
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 02.02.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.01.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"(a) Concerned Department: Admn IV/ V section
(b) Particulars of Information Required:
(i) Details of the information required - Inspection of the staff quarter allotment file of ICAR-CIRCOT, Mumbai
(ii) Details of the information required Inspection of the files related to the construction of staff quarter (Type-IV) Mahim of ICAR-CIRCOT, Mumbai
(iii) The period to which the information relates: Years 1972-2023
(iv) Other details: Hand delivery of the requested documents (to be identified on inspection)"
Aggrieved by non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO within the time limit, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 24.02.2025 has been received from CPIO, ICAR- CIRCOT stating as under:Page 1 of 3
1. Applicant has not made an appeal to the first appellate authority who is an officer senior in rank to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of ICAR-CIRCOT, within a period of 30 days after not receiving the reply from the PIO. On contrary, the applicant has directly approached the CIC, by-passing the first appellate authority (CPIO) within 30 days available for appeal.
2. The applicant is working in the same office as a Principal Scientist.
However, he has not clearly specified the type of information sought in his application, as mentioned under Section 6(1) of the Act. In particular, regarding the information sought:
(i) The applicant has not clearly mentioned which staff quarter allotment file of ICAR-CIRCOT, Mumbai, he wishes to inspect.
(ii) The construction of staff quarters (Type-IV) at Mahim was carried out by the CPWD. Therefore, for inspecting details related to the construction of staff quarters, the applicant may need to approach CPWD, Mumbai.
3. Details regarding the allotment of quarters are always displayed on the notice boards of ICAR-CIRCOT for the general information of staff members, ensuring transparency in the process. ICAR-CIRCOT is an autonomous body under the Department of Agricultural Research and Education, Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare, New Delhi. For the allotment of general quarters up to Type-V, ICAR-CIRCOT follows the service seniority rule as per the ICAR Quarter Allotment Rules. Information related to quarter applications and allotments is made available on the notice board whenever the process is initiated and completed.
4. The applicant has also approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on the same subject, vide O.A. No.477 of 2024. The matter is sub judice before the tribunal. All relevant facts have been placed before the Hon'ble CAT, and all documents related to the allotment of quarters have been provided in the reply filed by the institute. A copy of the same is also available to the applicant. If any additional information is sought by the court, the office will provide it to the applicant as required.
5. If the applicant submits a precise and specific request for information, we are open to providing the required details within the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Present through video conference Respondent: Shri Yogesh Ram Pathare - CPIO, ICAR-CIRCOT was present through video conference during hearing.
Both parties reiterated their respective contentions and the Respondent stated that response has been sent to the Complainant vide written submission dated 24.02.2025.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the records of the case and after hearing the averments of the Respondent it is noted that response has been furnished now to the Complainant in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission takes an adverse note of the unexplained delay of over one year in responding to the RTI application by the Respondent and cautions the public authority to strictly Page 2 of 3 adhere to the timeline as mandated under the RTI Act, while responding to RTI queries.
Since the Complainant has chosen to approach 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 appropriate response, 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. ...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."
Be that as it may, the Commission is of the opinion that response provided by the Respondent in this case 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 Respondent is directed to send a copy of the complete set of the written submission dated 24.02.2025, to the Complainant within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within a week thereafter.
The case is disposed off as such.
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)