Central Information Commission
Sonia Suhag vs Ndmc on 4 October, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NDMCN/C/2023/108901
Sonia Suhag ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Navyug School Educational
Society, Tughlak Crescent,
New Delhi - 110011 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.09.2024
Date of Decision : 03.10.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 31.10.2022
CPIO replied on : 09.12.2022
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11.02.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 31.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Please provide the certified copy of noting/proposal/correspondence pages placed in file no. E-115353.
2. Please provide the certified copy of movement of E-115353.Page 1 of 6
3. Kindly confirm that during the DPC dated 20.07.2016 the administrative officer has actively contributed in the DPC with documentary/supporting proof (certified copy).
4. Kindly confirm that during the DPC dated 16.09.2016 the administrative officer has actively contributed in the DPC with documentary/supporting proof (certified copy)."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 09.12.2022 stating as under:
"Please refer to your RTI vide ID No. NDMC/R/2022/61022 dated 19.09.2022. It is inform you that the relevant information as asked in the said RTI were supplied to you vide this office letter NO.973/NSES/M.Sec/2022 dated 18.10.2022.
Further as regard point No.7 of the said RTI the details of roaster register of TGT duly signed by the Liaison Officer on 14.06.2016 (Summary as on 31.07.2015) for direct recruitment and promotion quota were also provided to you free of cost vide letter NO.1037/NSES/M.Sec/2022 dated 16.11.2022 which was acknowledge by you on 17.11.2022 (44 pages). It was also intimated you vide letter dated 16.11. 2022 as referred above that in case you are not satisfied with the said information, you may file an appeal before the Ist Appellate Authority i.e. Director (Education)/NSES. It is learnt that you have made allegation against PIO directly to the CIC vide your application dated 20.11.22 ignoring file an appeal before the Ist Appellate Authority i.e. Director Education NDMC/NSES 5th Floor Palika Kendra Sansad Marg New Delhi.
You are once again informed that if any documents pertain to above RTI, you can visit to this office on any working day during the office hours to identify the documents and collect the photocopies of documents, if required free of cost, with prior intimation to the undersigned."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent.
Respondent: Shri Vikas Mathur, PIO-cum-Administration Officer, attended the hearing in person.Page 2 of 6
The Complainant did not participate in the hearing.
The Respondent submitted that a suitable and pointwise information based on available records has been given to the Complainant. He further reiterated the contents of his written submission.
A written submission has been received from Shri Vikas Mathur, PIO-cum- Administration Officer, vide letter dated 20.09.2024, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"With reference to CIC File No.CIC/NDMCN/C/2023/108901 dated 09.09.2024 (received on (12.09.2024) on the subject cited above, I am to state that mandate of RTI Act, 2005 is to provide documents as sought in RTI Application as per provision of RTI Act, 2005. Further, Rule-19 of RTI Act, 2005 provides that "Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub- section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority". The complainant has ignored the provision of making Ist Appeal as provided under Section 18 and 19 of RTI Act, 2005 and has filed a complaint with CIC. In brief, Ms. Sonia Suhag, PRT, NSES (here-in-after called the Complainant) filed an Application dated NIL through NDMC portal bearing RTI ID No. NDMC/R/2022/61177 dated 31.10.2022 seeking the following information under RTI Act, 2005:-
1. To provide the certified copy of noting/proposal/correspondence pages placed in File N:o. D-115353.
2. To provide the certified copy of movement of E-115353.
3. To confirm that during the DPC dated 20.07.2016 the administrative officer has actively contributed in the DPC with documentary/supporting proof(certified copy)
4. To confirm that during the DPC dated 16.09.2016 the administrative officer has actively contributed in the DPC with documentary/supporting proof(certified copy) In this connection, it is submitted that the reply to the RTI bearing Registration Number NDMC/R/2022/61177 dated 31.10.2022 was transferred to PIO/NSES on 01.11.2022. Thereafter, RTI Application was examined and a reply was prepared by the PIO/NSES vide his office letter No. 1101/M.Secy./NSES dated 02.12.2022 (Annexure-A) furnishing all the available information/documents which were covered under RTI Act 2005 and the RTI stands disposed off on RTI Portal on 16.12.2022(copy of online portal showing Reply attached is enclosed). As such, the said RTI did not came to notice of the PIO/NSES as pending. However, after the receipt of Notice through CIC File No.CIC/NDMCN/C/2023/108901 dated 09.09.2024 (received on (12.09.2024) the matter was examined and it came to notice that inadvertently against the RTI Application dated 31.10.2022, the reply dated 15.12.2022 of an Page 3 of 6 another online RTI No. NDMC/R/2022/61229 dated 18.11.2022 submitted by the applicant was got uploaded on RTI Portal on 16.12.2022 (Annexure-B), However, the copy of reply prepared by the PIO/NSES in response to her RTI Application bearing registration number NDMC/R/2022/6117 dated 31.10.2022 has now been sent to her through speed post. (Annexure-C) It is further stated that the information sought by the applicant in her RTI dated 31.10.2022 at Point Nos. 1 & 2 has already been furnished by the PIO/NSES to her in an another RTI filed by her vide letter No. 775/NSES/M.Secy./2022 dated 18.08.2022 against Point No. 1 and 2 of the said letter (Annexure-D).
As regards point nos. 3 & 4 of her above RTI Application, it is stated that the information sought by the applicant does cover under RTI Act. As per para 2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005 "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and hence the same can not be provided. The DPC is an independent body and no one other than the member of DPC can intervene into the proceedings of the DPC. The Admn. Officer/NSES was not a member of DPC. Hence, question does not arise for his involvement in DPC proceedings. However, only the relevant information/documents are provided to the DPC by the concerned Establishment Branch.
The complainant after receiving the reply dated 15.12.2022 (not dated 09.12.2022 as mentioned by the applicant in her present complaint), if was not satisfied, she had an opportunity to file an appeal to the 1" Appellate authority. Even in the letter dated 09.12.2022, itself she was informed that if any documents pertaining to her RTI, she can visit the office of PIO/NSES during office hours to identify the documents and collect the photocopies of documents, if required free of cost, with prior intimation to the undersigned. Even then, neither the complainant Ms. Sonia Suhag approached PIO/NSES office nor filed any appeal before the 1" Appellate Authority with regards to her grievances, which is her right under RTI Act. Rather, she filed a complaint to CIC with an ill intention to get undue shelter under RTI Act, 2005 and to pressurize/harass the PIO/NSES. Had, the complainant filed an Appeal before the Ist Appellate Authority or attended the office of the PIO/NSES the correct reply which was prepared by the PIO/NSES would have delivered to her, immediately.
The complainant is in the habit to file complaints before the CIC against PIO/NSES without availing the opportunity for filing an appeal as prescribed under RTI Act, 2005, which clearly shows that the complainant is deliberately and intentionally violating the statutory provisions under RTI Act, 2005. The complainant is being replied by the PIO/NSES on her each communication / RTI / Representation but she is in the habit of filing bunch of RTI applications/complaints to CIC as well as representations with regards to her promotion matter which resulted into a continuous harassment to the public authority. The PIO has to go on answering, more and more questions on the same issue.
Page 4 of 6In view of the position explained in above paras, it is clear that the PIO/NSES after receiving her RTI Application dated 31.10.2022, had prepared the reply but it could not be uploaded online portal rather another reply to the RTI of Ms. Sonia Suhag was got uploaded, inadvertently. The complainant is making false and fabricated allegations against the PIO/NSES. Had she visited the office of PIO/NSES for a wrong reply to her RTI or filed Ist Appeal before the appellate authority, the error which was met un- intentional by the PIO/NSES, the same would have sorted out, immediately. It is requested that necessary directions may also be issued to the complainant to refrain herself from making any derogatory remarks against PIO/NSES or making un- necessary Representations/Applications under RTI Act, 2005 and also first to avail the opportunities provided in the ACT by making appeal to the 1st Appellate authority to resolve her issues rather than approaching the CIC, directly. The complaint filed by Ms. Sonia Suhag in the CIC may kindly be filed."
Decision The Commission observed that the present complaint was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was 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 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 Page 5 of 6 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 of performance are necessarily forbidden."
The above ratio is applicable to this case as well. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the PIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of the Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the instant complaint.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)