Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 27 August, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/SPMCO/C/2019/600566
Varun Krishna ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Security Printing And Minting ... ितवादी/Respondent
Corporation Of India Limited
(SPMCIL), New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 31-07-2018 FA : 27-11-2018 Complaint: 11-01-2019
CPIO : 28-08-2018 FAO : 24-12-2018 Hearing: 20-08-2020
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Security Printing And Minting Corporation Of India Limited (SPMCIL), New Delhi seeking following information:-
"(i) Subject matter of information: Information required relating to Email received by CVO-SPMCIL vide Dtd 15.6.18 [Copy Enclosed].
(ii) The period to which information relates: 15.6.18 till the Date of disposal of this RTI application.
(iii)Description of Information required: Please provide certified copies of the following:
1. File noting pertaining to my email along with Daily progress from date of receipt till date of this application mentioning Names, & designations of officials with whom the email was lying during this period and date wise period with each official and details of action taken by him/her.
2. Action Taken Report by the concerned official.Page 1 of 5
3. If no action taken by the concerned official then provide Name, and Official mobile number of his/her controlling authority along with grounds available in records for not taking any action [Ref section 4.1.d]."
2. The CPIO responded on 28-08-2018. The complainant filed the first appeal dated 27-11-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 24-12- 2018. Thereafter, he filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Hearing:
3. The complainant, Mr. Varun Krishna attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. V Balaji, AGM(HR) participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The complainant contended that according to his understanding, the CPIO has not complied with the direction of the 1st appellate authority regarding providing of the updated status of his grievance. Therefore, an appropriate action should be initiated against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. The respondent submitted that according to his understanding, the 1st appellate authority had directed to provide the updated information as to whether the then grievance coordinating officer of the Corporate Office had forwarded the grievance dated 31-05-2018 to the ISP Nashik for its redressal. Accordingly, they had sent a reply to the complainant thereby indicating that the letter dated 31-05-
2018 was duly forwarded by the then grievance coordinating officer of the Corporate Office to the ISP Nashik on 07-09-2018. Therefore, they did not have any intention to hide the information. The given reply was also read out by the respondent.
Decision:
6. The order of the first appellate authority is reproduced below:-
"If I recollect, I had directed the then grievance coordinating officer of the Corporate Office to send the grievance dated 31-05- 2018 to the ISP Nashik for redressal, the PIO, Corporate Office is directed to provide updated information in this regard within 15 days."
7. This Commission is not adjudicating on furnishing the information to the complainant and therefore, the legal issue to be decided herein is whether there is any malafide of the then CPIO which attracts penal action u/Section 20 of the RTI Page 2 of 5 Act, 2005. From the foregoing, this Commission observes that both the parties have drawn their different inferences. The complainant implies from the 1st appellate authority's order that it pertains to providing the updated status of the grievance wherein the respondent claims that it relates to providing the updated status on forwarding the grievance petition to the ISP, Nashik. As such, no malafide is seen with the interpretation of the 1st appellate authority order by the then CPIO. Hence, no penalty can be imposed merely on the ground that according to the complainant, the 1st appellate authority order should have been interpreted differently. With regard to the situations governing imposition of penalty on the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, this Commission refers to the decision dated 01-06-2012 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 titled as Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr., wherein, it was held as under:-
"61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to fulfill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and Page 3 of 5 may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."
8. Similarly, the following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors., WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:-
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
9. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr., WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20-03-2009 has held as under:-
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely. ...The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
10. In light of the factual matrix of the case and the legal principles enunciated in the aforementioned case-laws, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the complainant has not been able to substantiate his contentions regarding malafide denial of information by the respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause. In view of this, no action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 is warranted in this case.
11. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
Page 4 of 512. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date:20-08-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Security Printing And Minting Corporation Of
India Limited (SPMCIL), Nodal PIO, RTI Cell,
16th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Varun Krishna
Page 5 of 5