Central Information Commission
Shiva Ram vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 11 July, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/BSNLD/C/2024/645789
Shri Shiva Ram निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Date of Hearing : 09.07.2025
Date of Decision : 09.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 25.07.2024
PIO replied on : 28.08.2024
First Appeal filed on : 31.08.2024
First Appellate Order on : 09.10.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 25.07.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"Kindly provide the following information under RTI Act 2005 for use of filing an OA/case in Hon'ble CAT to get justice against chargesheet on dated 10.12.2015 ,appeal and review appeal decision on dated 31.05.2024
1..Please arrange to provide my Joining report and charge assumption report(ACG61) for additional charge of Kushalgarh SDCA charge of Banswara SSA as per letter /order dated 21.08.2015 by GMTD Banswara.
2. Please arrange to provide notesheet approval for point number 1. a. As per section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005, In case, the requested information is held by another public authority, I request the PIO to transfer the application or part of it within FIVE days and immediately inform me about such transfer. b. As per section 7(3) of the RTI Act 2005, In case, there are further fee required to provide the requested information, I request the PIO to inform me of the additional fee amount along with the calculations made to arrive at the amount."
The CPIO & DGM (Operation), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Banswara vide letter dated 28.08.2024 replied as under:-
Page 1 "I would like to draw your kind attention towards chargesheet served by H'ble GMTD. Udaipur vide memo no. X-1/Dise./Shiva Ram/2015-16/12 dated 10.12.2015 and subsequently your appeal rejected by H'ble CGMT, Rajasthan. Since then you have filed following RTI Applications regarding Bagidora and Kushalgarh SDCAs.
S.N. Registration No. Name Current Received Closing date Status of date Request
1. BSNRJ/R/2018/50059 Shiva Request 10.01.2018 19.07.2018 Ram Disposed Of
2. BSNRJ/R/2018/50074 Saroj Request 03.05.2018 19.07.2018 Disposed of
3. BSNRJ/R/2018/50082 Saroj Request 21.05.2018 19.07.2018 Disposed of
4. BSNRJ/R/2018/50161 Saroj Request 20.09.20218 08.10.2018 Disposed of
5. BSNRJ/R/2018/50161 Shiva Request 22.09.2018 20.02.2020 Ram Disposed of
6. BSNRJ/R/2018/50180 Saroj Request 12.10.2018 16.07.2019 W/o Disposed Shiva of Ram
7. Etc. After passing of almost 09 years of charge'sheet's decision, you are still asking repetitive information and mentioning that it is required for legal appeal.
This time you have filed 05 RTI applications of same nature (mentioned in subject) within a week of time which is clearly describe misuse of RTI Act. Your all 05 RTI Requests mentioned under reference are hereby disposed off."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 31.08.2024. The FAA vide order dated 09.10.2024 stated as under:-
"........it is submitted that Reply of your RTI request number BSNRJ/R/E/24/00123 DATED 25.07.2024 has been submitted by vide letter no RJUPRD-41/16(11)/1/2022-Banswara dated 28.09.2024.Investigation in the case already done in year 2015 and Memorandum/ charge sheet was served to Sh. Shiva ram SDE HRMS NO 200300787 and Final order in the case was ordered by Then disciplinary Authority. The appeal has been disposed accordingly."
Page 2 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present Respondent: Sumit Doshi, DGM The submissions of both the parties were heard. The CPIO in his oral submissions categorically stated that all the information which was available with the department has already been provided to the Appellant. However, despite of having received complete information, the Appellant has been repeatedly filing the RTI application on the same subject matter. The CPIO submitted that Appellant is misusing the RTI with the intention to harass the Organization.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of 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:-
"...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 Page 3 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."
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...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)