Central Information Commission
Brijesh vs Irrigation And Flood Control ... on 27 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IAFCD/C/2023/119521
Brijesh ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Office of the Executive
Engineer, Civil Division No.
IX, Irrigation and Flood
Control Department, Rohini
Office Complex, Sector-15,
Rohini, Delhi - 110089 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.08.2024
Date of Decision : 23.08.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 20.11.2022
CPIO replied on : 16.12.2022
First appeal filed on : NIL
First Appellate Authority's order : 10.02.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01.05.2022
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.11.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Please provide the detail list of all chhat pooja ghats was built or maintained by your department (either permanent or temporary) in Rithala Page 1 of 5 (06) Vidhansabha in FY 2022-23 along with contract value (each ghat), location with complete address, agency allotted & sub vendor (if any).
2. Provide copies of work order along with Bill of Quantity for all above such contracts.
3.Provide the date wise list of detailed payment release of above contract with amount, DD/Cheque/RTGS/UTR No., and Vendor Name."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 16.12.2022 stating as under:
"With reference to your RTI application referred above. In this connection, it is intimated that the requisite information is available in approximate 1800 page @2/ each (A4 size) the information can be provided to you by depositing of requisite amount i.e. Rs. 3600/- in this division (the number of pages may be increased or decreased the amount shall be adjusted accordingly to the number of pages at the time of delivery of document)."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 27.04.2023 stating as under:
"This is in continuation of this office letter No. F.16(40)/EE/CD-IX/DB/2022- 23/1707-09 dated 16.12.2022 under RTI Act vide which it was requested for depositing the fees for photocopies of documents and the same has been deposited by you. Now, therefore, the copies of the said documents as required are enclosed herewith, in pages No. 1 to 201 (A4)."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated NIL. The FAA vide its order dated 10.02.2023, held as under:
"In his online RTI appeal dated 22/01/2023, Sh. Brijesh, the appellant stated that the PIO has not acted as per the provisions of the RTI Act. He has also stated that the PIO has not provide the documents after paying fee.
During the course of hearing PIO/EE CD-IX has submitted that their office will provide copies of all the requisite document with 7 days i.e upto 17/02/2023.
The appeal is disposed off with the order that PIO/EE CD-IX will forward the copy of all the requisite document sought by the appellant within 7 days i.e. upto 17/02/2023 by speed post."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 2 of 5Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Anurag Jain, PIO-cum-EE, attended the hearing in person.
The Complainant stated that despite of taking the fees of Rs 3,600/- for documentation charges, irrelevant documents have been deliberately provided by the CPIO. He added that the CPIO has given 13 sets of standard tender documents which were already available on the website and the same was not even sought by him. He further apprised the bench of the fact that another bench of this Commission in Second Appeal No. CIC/IAFCD/A/2022/653292, has passed an order on 18.08.2023, wherein the then CPIO Mr. NSP Patwal, Executive Engineer, was issued SCN for providing misleading information.
The Respondent submitted that on receipt of the documentation fee from the Complainant, the then CPIO Shri NP Maurya has provided the documents to the Complainant but if the Complainant is still not satisfied with the same, he is at liberty to come to their office for inspection of the relevant records so that the requisite documents can be earmarked and a copy of the same be provided to the Complainant.
A written submission has been received from EE, Civil Division, vide letter dated 12.08.2024, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"With reference to file No. CIC/IAFCD/C/2023/119521 dated 01.08.2024, received in this office regarding to provide the information for RTI submitted by Sh. Brijesh. In this regard, the brief matrix of events in this matter is as follows:- (1) Sh. Brijesh has filed an online RTI request bearing No. DOIFC/R/2022/60480 on dated 20.11.2022 (copy placed at Annexure-A), where he has sought some information as mentioned in his RTI application.
(ii) Consequent upon receipt of his online RTI request this office has requested the applicant vide this office letter No. F.16(40)/EE/CD-IX/DB/2022-23/1707-09 dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-B) to deposit Rs. 3600/- as photocopy charges, so that the requisite information as sought by the applicant can be provided to him as per the provision laid in RTI Act-2005. (iii) Accordingly, Sh. Brijesh the applicant deposited Rs. 3600/- as photocopy charges for the information sought by him on dated 16.12.2022.Page 3 of 5
(iv) Sh. Brijesh preferred for 1st Appeal with FAA bearing No. DOIFC/A/2023/60006 on dated 22.01.2023 (Annexure-C). The date and time for the first appeal has been fixed as 10.02.2023 at 04:00 PM and an order bearing No. SE/FC- III/SW/FAA/DOIFC/A/2022/60006/2022-23/3015-17 dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure-D) has been passed by FAA directing the then PIO to provide copies of the documents as sought by the applicant upto 17.02.2023 by speed post.
(v) In response to the order of FAA dated 14.02.2023 the documents were supplied to applicant vide this office letter No. F.16(40)/EE/CD-IX/DB/2022-23/225-227 dated 27.04.2023 contained in 201 pages (Annexure-E), No. F.16(40)/EE/CD- IX/DB/2022- 23/288-290 dated 01.05.2023 contained in 203 pages (Annexure-F), No. F.16(40)/EE/CD-IX/DB/2023-24/465-467 dated 17.05.2023 contained in 604 pages (Annexure-G) & No. F.16(40)/EE/CD-IX/DB/2023-24/1620-1622 dated 19.07.2023 contained in 806 pages (Annexure-H)."
Decision The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records notes that the instant matter is a complaint under the RTI Act, where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011 : AIR 2012 SC 864; wherein their Lordships have held as under:
"the remedy for a person who had sought information and was refused information, was to make an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. Their Lordships have held that the nature of power under Section 18 of the Act 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 which he has sought for can only seek redressed in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. 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. Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and provide two different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other. While holding so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the position that an appeal under Section 18 of the Act cannot be filed before the Chief Information Officer. In the instant case, a complaint is filed under Section 18(1) of the Act. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complaint made by the second respondent herein is not sustainable."Page 4 of 5
The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon perusal of the facts on record, the Commission observes that the then PIO Shri NP Maurya, Executive Engineer, has provided irrelevant documents, which were already available in public domain, which also raises doubt that the denial of information is with a mala fide intent. Therefore, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause notice to the then PIO Shri NP Maurya, Executive Engineer, for flouting the provisions of RTI Act. The then PIO shall explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act for the foregoing reasons, written explanation of the then PIO should reach the Commission within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of this order shall be served upon the then PIO by the present PIO.
Notwithstanding the above, the Commission appreciates the efforts made by the present PIO by facilitating the opportunity of inspection of the relevant records to the Complainant and therefore no mala fide is established against the present PIO, and he is advised to fulfil the commitment made during the hearing in a time bound manner.
The Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Office of the Executive Engineer, Civil Division No. IX, Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Rohini Office Complex, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi - 110089 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)