Central Information Commission
Shravan Prasad vs Damodar Valley Corporation on 22 September, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DVCOR/A/2021/130849
CIC/DVCOR/C/2022/110525
Shravan Prasad ......अपीलकता /Appellant
....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Damodara Valley Corporation
DVC Towers, VIP Rd, Kolkata,
West Bengal-700054 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21/09/2022
Date of Decision : 21/09/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Complaint/Appeal have been clubbed for decision as
these are based on same RTI Application.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal/complaint:
RTI application filed on : 01/04/2021
CPIO reply on : 10/05/2021 & N.A.
First appeal filed on : 07/07/2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record & 24/07/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26/07/2021 & 31/01/2022
1
CIC/DVCOR/A/2021/130849
CIC/DVCOR/C/2022/110525
Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.04.2021 seeking the following information:
CIC/DVCOR/A/2021/130849 Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.05.2021. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 07.07.2021 stating as follows:-
"............the information sought for could not traced out at this juncture. DVC office is closed due to lockdown for which we are sending information to your email address, as received. We regret for this unwanted inconvenience."2
CIC/DVCOR/C/2022/110525 Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 10.05.2021. FAA's order dated 24.07.2021 held as under:-
In compliance of FAA's order, the CPIO furnished a revised reply to the Complainant on 26.07.2021 stating as follows:-
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant/complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant/Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: S Sill, DCE & CPIO along with Koushik Roy, Dy. Director (HR) & CPIO present through video-conference.
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 16.09.2022 and submitted that the Appellant/Complainant has sought for information pertaining to the averred court case at points no. 1-3 of RTI Application and also the details of CPIO, FAA and RTI Rules on the remaining points of RTI Application. He further submitted that a reply intimating the factual position has already been provided to the Appellant/Complainant regarding non-availability of the records of such old case 3 of 1997. He added that despite their best efforts they are unable to trace the records of information sought for. However, via other means, efforts were made to search the above sought information by the legal wing through 'google search portal'. But the fact remains that they are not in possession of the requisite information but however, it is available on the portal of the Hon'ble Apex Court website. The CPIO further added that a copy of position as available on the 'Google' was annexed with their written submission and furnished to the Appellant/Complainant. No other additional information is available with them.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the main premise raised in the instant Appeal/Complaint was non receipt of reply within the stipulated time frame as envisaged under the RTI Act; for which the Appellant/ Complainant has sought penal action to be initiated against the CPIO under Section 20 of RTI Act. In response to it, the CPIO submitted that a factual reply had already been provided to the Appellant/ Complainant earlier on 07.07.2021.
Having observed as above, the Commission is not inclined to initiate any penal action against the CPIO for want of malafide on their part and also in view of the challenges faced by the entire world due to circumstances owing to COVID pandemic. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant/Complainant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
"61. 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...."
In addition to above, the Commission upon a perusal of records finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO earlier and also as a sequel to it further 4 clarifications tendered by him now through written submission dated 16.09.2022 as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant/Complainant, as per the provisions of RTI Act. Moreover, the Appellant did not avail the opportunity to plead his case or contest CPIO's submission despite receipt of hearing notice. In view of this, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the attention of the CPIO is invited to the clause 4 of the CIC's hearing notice which is as under -
"....4. All the parties may submit their written submission, if any, to the Commission at least 3 working days before the date of hearing. A copy of the same shall be served upon opposite party. If any party wishes to make online submission, the same may be sent to the Commission's link only viz., http://dsscic.nic.in/online- link-paper-compliance/add.
In view of the above said point, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of his written submission dated 16.09.2022 free of cost to the Appellant, if not provided to him at all, within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal/complaint are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स$यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5