Central Information Commission
Darshan Lal vs Ministry Of Housing & Urban Affairs on 2 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MOHUA/C/2024/102012
Darshan Lal ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Directorate of Printing,
Govt. of India Press, 1, Temple
Street, Kolkata - 700072 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 23.04.2025
Date of Decision : 02.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 13.11.2023
CPIO replied on : 30.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 06.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 01.01.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.01.2024
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application (offline) dated 13.11.2023 seeking the following information:
"On 03.11.2023 at 11.27 AM, my mobile was showing missed call of Shri. N.K. Paria from M. No. 9953818857. I did call him back at 11.29 AM (19 Seconds) and once again he called me at 11.33 AM (34 Seconds). Due to network problem, I could talked with him through WhatsApp Calls at Page 1 of 7 11.34 AM (2 Minutes 49 Seconds) and again at 11.53 AM (9 Minutes 12 Seconds) During telephonic discussions with Shri N.K. Paria, he told me that he has joined as Manager in GIP, TS, Kolkata and he was calling from there. He did confirm E-mails dates & timings of receiving of Promotion Order No. A-32012/3/2022-Admin.II Prtg-UD dated 31.10.2023 and Transfer/Posting Order No. A-32012/3/2022-Admin. II Prtg-UD dated 31.10.2023 received in Press on 31.10.2023 through E- mails from the Directorate of Printing. On asking for copies of E-mail messages to verify dates & time, he asked for RTI, which have alreadly been filed.
During telephonic talks, Shri N.K. Paria also told me that he is under pressure for filing. FIR against me regarding 'HACKING' etc. of official E- mail [email protected] of the GIP, TS, Kolkata. Shri Paria knows that incident of hacking of official E-mail has never occurred in the GIPs. In fact, efforts are being made to know my sources of information. From above, there appears criminal conspiracy against me, my defamation, planning & plotting for making baseless, frivolous, false FIR/Complaint against me. These are being done to defame me, which is very painful for me, hence, this RTI Application is filed for supply following authentic/ certified official information:-
1. Supply me certified copy of FIR or Complaint, if any made against me regarding 'HACKING' etc. of official E-mail ID [email protected] of the GIP, TS, Kolkata.
2. Supply me certified copies of details of E-mail Account Acvities of above E-mail ID [email protected] of GIP, TS, Kolkata from 31.10.2023- 9.00AM to 02.11.2023-06.30 PM showing Time, Date, IP Addresses of the my Computer, my Mobile and my Locations etc. produced alongwith complaint in support of allegations regarding 'HACKING' etc. of official E- mail ID alleged against me.
3. Supply me certified copies of orders, if any received from the Director (Printing) or from any other officer of the Directorate of Printing for filing FIR/ Complaint against me regarding HACKING' etc. of above E-mail ID.
4. Supply me certified copy of report of investigations carried out in GIP, TS, Kolkata to verify facts of "HACKING' etc. of above E-mail ID before filing FIR/Complaint against me.
5. In case no order received as sought at above Point No. 3, please supply me certified copies of orders on the basis of which FIR/ Complaint has been made against me regarding "HACKING' etc. of above E-mail ID"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 30.11.2023 stating as under:
Page 2 of 7"1. Since the matter is under Police Verification the information cannot be disclosed under Rule 8(1)(h) of RTI Act 2005."
2 to 4. -do-"
3. Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 06.12.2023.
The FAA vide its order dated 01.01.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
5. The following were present:-
Complainant: Shri Darshan Lal along with Shri Tushar, attended the hearing in person.
Respondent: Shri Subir Narayan Garai, CPIO-cum-Deputy Manager, attended the hearing in person.
6. The Complainant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application. He added that the Respondent has denied the information citing Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act without intimating specific reasons, as to how, disclosure of information would impede investigations He apprised the bench of the fact that Shri N.K. Paria himself acted as the CPIO and First Appellate Authority. It is a proved case of misuse of official status as he disrespected the RTI Act and intentionally obstructed flow of information with mala fide intentions. He further reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 17.04.2024, which are under:
"Hearing of above complaint has been fixed on 23.04.2025 at 11.25AM, regarding which, I would like to furnished following submissions with an earnest request to consider and pass necessary order for supply of information as sought vide my RTI Application dated 13.11.2023. Hon'ble Commission is earnestly requested to consider following points:-
1. Shri N.K. Paria himself acted as CPIO and Shri N.K. Paria himself acted as First Appellate Authority. It is a proved case of misuse of official status. He disrespected RTI Act and intentionally obstructed flow of information with malafide intentions.Page 3 of 7
2. FIR is a public document. CBI, Kolkata Police and Delhi Police upload FIRs on their official websites. Despite well knowing this fact, copy of FIR filed has not been supplied.
Supply of information has been denied citing Section-8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without intimating specific reasons, as to how, supply of information would impede investigations. Attention of the Hon'ble Commission is invited to the following orders:-
Hon'ble Central Information Commission's Decision No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2016/300740/SB, dated 14.02.2017 passed in the matter of Manju Pandey Vs Delhi Police.
(ii) Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 3114/2007 categorically held that mere existence of an investigation is not sufficient grounds to decide that information is exempt under Section-8(1)(h) of RTI Act and that reasons for the same must be specifically stated. However, respondent has not been able to show as to how the disclosure of the information sought would impede process of investigation. Hence, in view of observations in above mentioned case, CPIO may be directed to provide information.
From above, it is beyond any doubt that Shri N.K. Paria - (i) Unlawfully acted both as CPIO & FAA knowingly disrespected RTI Act, 2005 misusing his official position (ii) He knowingly wrongly denied supply of information as per Section-8(1)(h) without intimating specific reasons. Therefore, it is earnestly requested to kindly consider above submissions and issue order for supply of copy of FIR and other information. Further, it is also requested to impose penalty as per Section-20 regarding wrongful denial and issue directions to the Secretary, MoHUA for initiating disciplinary action against Shri N.K. Paria as per rules.
Yours faithfully"
7. The Respondent submitted that the matter is under police verification and reminders has also been sent to officer in-charge of P.S. Bowbazar, and therefore, the information has been denied to the Complainant citing Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.
8. The Commission interjected and remarked the Respondent that as per available records, it is evident that the reply given by the CPIO and FAA has been signed by Shri NK Paria. In response, the Respondent submitted that at the relevant time Shri NK Paria was the then CPIO and on 05.12.2023, he was given the charge of First Appellate Authority.
9. The Commission further asked the Respondent to provide documentary proof which shows that Shri NK Paria was the then CPIO at the relevant time and the FAA on 05.12.2023. The Respondent submitted that the Page 4 of 7 officer having Deputy Manager designation is the CPIO and officer having Manager designation is the FAA in their office. He further referred to office memorandum dated 05.12.2023, which shows that Shri NK Paria, Manager is the FAA, but he failed to provide any proof or order which shows that Shri NK Paria was having the charge of CPIO at the relevant time i.e. on 30.11.2023.
10. A written submission has been received from the Complainant vide letter dated 16.04.2025, stating as under:
"Hearing of above complaint has been fixed on 23.04.2025 at 11.25AM, regarding which, I would like to furnished following submissions with an earnest request to consider and pass necessary order for supply of information as sought vide my RTI Application dated 13.11.2023. Hon'ble Commission is earnestly requested to consider following points:-
1. Shri N.K. Paria himself acted as CPIO and Shri N.K. Paria himself acted as First Appellate Authority. It is a proved case of misuse of official status. He disrespected RTI Act and intentionally obstructed flow of information with malafide intentions.
#2. FIR is a public document. CBI, Kolkata Police and Delhi Police upload FIRs on their official websites. Despite well knowing this fact, copy of FIR filed has not been supplied.
Supply of information has been denied citing Section-8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without intimating specific reasons, as to how, supply of information would impede investigations. Attention of the Hon'ble Commission is invited to the following orders:-
Hon'ble Central Information Commission's Decision No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2016/300740/SB, dated 14.02.2017 passed in the matter of Manju Pandey Vs Delhi Police.
(ii) Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 3114/2007 categorically held that mere existence of an investigation is not sufficient grounds to decide that information is exempt under Section-8(1)(h) of RTI Act and that reasons for the same must be specifically stated. However, respondent has not been able to show as to how the disclosure of the information sought would impede process of investigation. Hence, in view of observations in above mentioned case, CPIO may be directed to provide information.
From above, it is beyond any doubt that Shri N.K. Paria (i) Unlawfully acted both as CPIO & FAA knowingly disrespected RTI Act, 2005 misusing his official position (ii) He knowingly wrongly denied supply of information as per Section- 8(1)(h) without intimating specific reasons.
Therefore, it is earnestly requested to kindly consider above submissions and issue order for supply of copy of FIR and other information. Further, it is also requested to impose penalty as per Section-20 regarding wrongful denial and Page 5 of 7 issue directions to the Secretary, MoHUA for initiating disciplinary action against Shri N.K. Paria as per rules."
Decision
11. Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause to the information seeker. The Commission is not convinced with the reply provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application as the Respondent has denied the information citing Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act without intimating specific reasons, as to how, disclosure of information would impede investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders.
12. It is noted that the RTI Application was filed in the year 2023, and the CPIO in his reply stated that the matter is pending for police verification and even after 1.5 years, the CPIO's reply is same that the matter is pending for police verification which is a bit inconceivable which also raises doubt that the denial of information is with a mala fide intent.
13. The Commission further observes that as per available records, the reply given by the CPIO at the relevant time and order passed by the First Appellate Authority at the relevant time has been signed by one person i.e. Shri NK Paria. The answering Respondent during the hearing has provided documentary proof that Shri NK Paria was the then FAA but has failed to provide any proof or order showing that Shri NK Paria was having the charge of CPIO at the relevant time i.e. on 30.11.2023, which shows that deliberate attempt has been made to obstruct the information.
14. In view of the aforesaid anomalies, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause notice to Shri NK Paria, the then CPIO/FAA, for flouting the provisions of RTI Act. He 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, a written explanation of the then CPIO should reach the Commission within Page 6 of 7 three weeks of the date of receipt of this order. The present CPIO is also directed to serve a copy of this order to the then CPIO/FAA.
The Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA Directorate of Printing, Govt. of India Press, 1, Temple Street, Kolkata - 700072 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)