Central Information Commission
Roop Chand vs Ndmc on 26 March, 2021
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गगं नाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायत संख्या / Complaint No.: CIC/NDMCN/C/2019/109512
Roop Chand ...शिकायतकताा/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO
Assistant Director-(Enforcement), New
Delhi Municipal Council, Enforcement
Department, 4thFloor, Pragati Bhawan, Jai
Singh Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. Nodal Public Information Officer-RTI,
Assistant Director- (RTI Section), New Delhi
Municipal Council, Administration/RTI
Department, Palika Bhawan, Parliament Street,
NewDelhi-110001.
...प्रशतवादीगण /Respondent
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02-02-2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Complaint received at CIC : 28-02-2019
Date of Hearing : 26-03-2021
Date of Decision : 26-03-2021
lwpuk vk;qDr : Jh हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 4
Information sought:
The Complainant sought information regarding seeking a certified copy of the allotment letter No. D-1907 N.D. dated 13.04.2009 and connected documents attached therewith.
Written submissions have been received from PIO, Joint Director (Enf.), NDMC, vide letter dated 16.03.2021, as under:
Grounds for Complaint The PIO has not provided information to the appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Complainant: present in person Respondent: B K Singh, JD & PIO, Assistant Director-(Enforcement), New Delhi Municipal Council, Enforcement Department, present in person Rep. of Complainant stated that there has been a blatant delay in providing the relevant information by the Respondent Authority.
Upon Commissions instance PIO submitted that instant RTI Application was never received in their office. He further submitted that existence of the instant Page 2 of 4 RTI Application came into their knowledge after the receipt of Commission hearing notice and accordingly, Complainant was duly informed, by the Respondent, to submit appropriate documents so that his grievance can be resolved. He further submitted that Complainant can visit their office within 7 days along with the relevant documents. He, furthermore, assured that they will duly co-operate and resolve the said problem of the Complainant.
Rep. of Complainant requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide him the information.
Decision:
Commission takes into consideration the averment of the Complainant regarding non-provision of information to him, however, no relief can be ordered in the matter in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.12.2011 in Central Information Commissioner vs. State of Manipur wherein it was held as under:
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him.
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 Page 3 of 4 Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Adverting to the supra, Commission observes that instant RTI Application was never received in the office of the Respondent Authority and thus no malafide intention for non-disclosure of information can be ascribed on the PIO. Further, PIO has assured to redress the grievance of the Complainant. In view of the foregoing, no action is warranted in the instant matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया)
Information Commissioner (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत)
Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाि ग्रोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 4 of 4