Central Information Commission
Aman Kumar vs Consulate General Of India, Sao Paulo, ... on 1 April, 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
नितीय अपील संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/CGISB/C/2024/606981.
Shri. Aman Kumar. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Consulate General of India, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Date of Hearing : 27.03.2025
Date of Decision : 27.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.02.2024
PIO replied on : 09.02.2024
First Appeal filed on : 09.02.2024
First Appellate Order on : NA
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 27.02.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.02.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"This is an application seeking information concerning the issuing authority in question as well as the authenticity and origination of educational credentials that were issued in India. Further, in accordance with RTI Act of 2005 section 6(J), you are requested to provide certified copies of documents concerned.
Furthermore, you are requested to send the Boleto payment order since check or demand draft isn't viable"
The CPIO vide letter dated 09.02.2024 replied as under:-
"Please refer to your email dated 06th February 2024 seeking information under RTI Act 2005. You may please note that
(a) As per Section 7 of RTI Act 2005, CPIO will provide information to the applicant within 30 days of the receipt of the request on receipt of Page 1 payment. Email received on 06th February, 2024 and as such 30 days of period has not elapsed.
(b) There is no proof of payment of requisite fees nor exemption sought on the grounds provided in RTI Act for payment of fees for filing RTI application.
(c) Nationality of applicant is not mentioned nor any document submitted in this regard In view of above, Email message dated 06th February, 2024 is not maintainable as RTI Application under provisions of RTI Act and therefore the same is disposed of."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.02.2024 which was not adjudicated by the FAA. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, RTI Consultant The CPIO vide written submission dated 20.3.2025 stated that the petitioner through his email dated 06.02.2024 sent an email to the then CPIO Shri Adarsh Kumar Mishra which according to him was an RTI application seeking information concerning the issuing authority in question as well as the authenticity and origination of educational credentials that were issued in India." Evidently query in email is not at all clear. Otherwise also, such a query, if would have been clear, would have been firstly exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act in regard to one whose educational credentials were referred in the query. Moreover, CPIO is not supposed to authenticate. He can provide information only which exists on record that too subject to various exemptions defined under various sub-sections of section 8(1) of RTI Act. He further requested that to provide certified copies of documents concerned in accordance with section 6(J) of RTI Act. There is no section 6(J) in RTI Act.
The then CPIO vide its email reply dated 09.02.2024 communicated that in absence of fees/other details, his email could not be qualified as an RTI application. The petitioner also approached First appellate authority vide email dated 09.02.2024 but again lacking clarity of information sought and RTI fees. The petitioner instead insisted to send a Boleto (a mode of payment in Brazil) which is not a mode of payment of RTI fees at Consulate General of India, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Reference is invited to DoPT circular dated 05.12.2008 where modes of payment are clearly mentioned as cash or demand-draft/banker's- cheque/Indian Postal Order in name of "Accounts Officer". This is apart from Page 2 filing online RII applications where there is provision of making online payment.
CPIO has no power to bypass DoPT circular. Since neither query in email was clear nor RTI fees was submitted in modes outlined in DoPT circular.
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 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 Page 3 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 (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) 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)