Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 31 August, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के य सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
शकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/SPMCO/C/2019/600974
Varun Krishna ... शकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, Security Printing and ... तवाद /Respondent
Minting Corporation of India
Limited (SPMCIL), 16th Floor,
Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath,
New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 10.12.2018 FA : Not on record Complaint: 17.01.2019
CPIO : 04.01.2019 FAO : Not on record Hearing: 25.08.2020
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), 16th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi seeking information on two points, including, inter- alia:-
(i) If no action has been initiated by CMD-SPMCIL for perjury and/or false litigation against Central Information Commission then reasons Page 1 of 5 along with documentary proofs available on record be made known to me [Ref: section 4.1.d of RTI Act]; and
(ii) Copy of action under SPMCIL CDA rules that can be taken upon officials for submitting false affidavit before Honble High Court on affidavit.
2. Being aggrieved with the response given by the CPIO, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that action should be taken against the respondent.
Hearing:
3. The complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri V Balaji, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The complainant contended that wrong and evasive reply has been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 10.12.2018. Therefore, an appropriate legal action should be initiated against the then CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. The respondent reiterated the reply dated 04.01.2019 and submitted that they have informed the complainant on point no. 1 that his query is in hypothetical in nature which is not covered under the 'definition' of information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. On point no. 2, they have given SPMCIL CDA Rules, 2010. The respondent submitted that no other information is available on record.
Decision:
6. 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 CPIO which attracts penal action u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. The complainant has expressed that information has not been provided to him by the respondent. To this, the respondent categorically submitted that no such information is available in their records on point no. 1 and available information on point no. 2 has already been provided to the complainant.
7. This Commission also observes that the CPIO is obliged to provide the information to the extent it is available in their records. The CPIO has specifically indicated that no such information is available on records on point no. 1 and relevant rules has been furnished on point no. 2. If the information in the manner sought by the applicant is not available, there is no bounden duty of the CPIO to create any fresh compilation for non-existent records. This legal principle is supported by the Page 2 of 5 decision dated 07-01-2016 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015 titled as The Registrar of Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K Batra & Ors., wherein, it was held as under:-
"15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, "right to information" under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which it is sought by the applicant."
Since the CPIO has given a reply to the complainant as per the available records, no malafide is observed on the part of the CPIO.
While examining the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. In Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"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 Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."Page 3 of 5
8. The Commission observed that the reply given by the respondent is neither misleading nor unsatisfactory. Therefore, there are no sufficient grounds to take action against the respondent under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Therefore, no case of penalty has been made out, as the respondent has not obstructed any information with malafide intention. The Commission further relies upon the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on: 01.06.2012) wherein it was held:
" 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 showcause 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 ful fill 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 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."
9. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
Page 4 of 510. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कुमार ग"ु ता)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ता
Information Commissioner (स
सूचना आय# ु त)
त
िदनां क / Date: 25.08.2020
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा&णत स(या)पत 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 CPIO, RTI Cell,
16th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi-110001.
2. Varun Krishna,
Page 5 of 5