CIC: An advisory is issued to OSD to Chief Secretary, A & N Admin. to issue a direction to their PIO’s & FAA’s to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to RTI Applications & First Appeal in future
20 Mar, 2025Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 17.04.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
“1). Intimate the action taken by the Assistant Commissioner, Diglipur with respect to letter F-21/1/2022-O/O AS(AR & TRG)-Sectt/15130 dated 15.03.2023 issued by the Assistant Secretary (AR & Trg.), Secretariat regarding non-updates of citizens charter in website and not displayed in a prominent place of O/o the Assistant Commissioner, Diglipur, North Andaman. Supporting documents/evidences to be provided in this regard.
2). Intimate the action taken by the Assistant Commissioner, Diglipur with respect to letter No. 34-785/2023-Rev(2) dated 05.04.2023 issued by the Assistant Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, North & Middle Andaman, Mayabunder and later forwarded to Assistant Commissioner, Diglipur regarding delaying in demarcation of land bearing Sy.No.209/1/3 located at village R.K.Gram under Diglipur Tehsil. Supporting documents/evidences to be provided in this regard.
3). Intimate the action taken by the Assistant Commissioner, Diglipur with respect to circular F.No.16-57/2022/AR(Vol-I)/596 dated 09.12.2022 issued by the Assistant Secretary (AR & Trg.), Secretariat regarding compliance of para no.63 of Chapter-V of Manual of Office Procedure. Compliance report / supporting documents to be provided in this regard.
4). Intimate the action taken by the Assistant Commissioner, Diglipur with respect to letter F.No.3-38/2021-AR/178 dated 04.05.2021 issued by the Assistant Secretary (AR & Trg.), Secretariat regarding compliance of DoPT OM No. 10/1/2013-IR dated 06.10.2015. Compliance report / supporting documents to be provided in this regard.
5). Furnish the reason with supporting documents for non-complying of transfer order no. 2771 dated 25.10.2022 by the Assistant Commissioner, Diglipur in the matter of reliever Shri Gour Gopal Paul, Revenue Inspector attached to the O/o the Assistant Commissioner, Diglipur, North Andaman.
6). Provide the details of action taken by the Assistant Commissioner, Diglipur with respect to reply e-mails dated 24.02.2023, 27.03.2023, 30.03.2023, 10.04.2023 regarding violation of Administration order 2771 dated 25.10.2022 in the matter of reliever Shri Gour Gopal Paul, Revenue Inspector attached to the O/o the Assistant Commissioner, Diglipur, North Andaman. Supporting documents/evidences to be provided in this regard.”
The APIO furnished a reply to the Complainant on 13.06.2023 stating as under:
“With reference to your application dated 17.04.2023 received in this office vide this office R.D. No. 4227 dated 20.04.2023 on the captioned above and accordingly, it is to inform that, it is unable to trace out the demarcation application with the help of the Sy. Nos. mentioned in the application.
Therefore, it is requested to kindly provide the RD No. / RC No. of the application submitted, to trace out the same.”
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on the following grounds:
“…2. The Assistant Public information Officer (The Tehsildar), Olo the Assistant Commissioner, Diglipur, North Andaman-744202 replied vide letter no. E 47/RTI/TD/2022/340 dated 14.06.2023 without any particular information with respect to sought 06 queries. (Marked as ANNEXURE-B)
3. Since the reply of Assistant Public information Officer does not contained any essential! details of APIO or PIO and First Appellate Authority in accordance with the Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi office memorandum no.10/1/2013-lR dated 06.10.2015, hence it could not possible for me to file first appeal as no details disclosed in his reply. ln this connection, I had returned the original RTI reply letter to the Assistant Public information for the correction of deficiencies vide letter no. NM/DP(SG-5)/2023/34 dated 22.06.2023. (Marked as ANNEXURE-C)
4. Whereas, no reply was received, a reminder-1 vide letter no. NM/DP(SG5/2023138 dated 17.07.2023 forwarded to the Assistant Public information Officer and subsequently, reminder-2 vide letter no. NM/DP(SG-5)/2023/41 dated 28.07.2023, reminder-3 vide letter no. NM/DP(SG-5)/2023/44 dated 07.08.2023, reminder-4 vide No. NM/DP(SG-5)/2023/52 Dated 18.08.2023 were forwarded to the Public information Officer but regret to inform that nothing has been received from their end. (Marked as ANNEXURE-D)
5. ln view of the above, It has reveals that the Assistant Public information Officer and the Public information Officer malafidely denied to furnish corrected reply with essential details as per Department of Personne! & Training, New Delhi office memorandum no.101112013-lR dated 06.10.2015. Thus, one sided communications goes in vain without any reply from their end and consequently, it's distraught me.
6. Therefore, it is requested to your excellency's to look into the matter personally and initiate disciplinary action against aforementioned Assistant Public information Officer and the Public information Officer, O/o the Assistant Commissioner, Diglipur, North Andaman-744202 for harassing information seeker. I would remain indebted for your act of benevolence.
A written submission dated 28.02.2025 filed by Tehsildar/APIO, Diglipur is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
“…With reference to the above-mentioned CIC Show Cause Notice U/S 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, directing my appearance before you on 03.03.2025 at 11:15 AM, I would like to inform you that this office has already taken the necessary action in this regard. (Copy enclosed).
Letter dated 26.02.2024:
The draft citizen charter has been forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner’s Office for approval under reference F. No. 1- IT/AC/DP/2023/364 dated 14.07.2023. Upon receiving approval from the competent authority the Citizen Charter will be updated on the website and prominently displayed at the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Diglipur, North Andaman.
Regarding point No. 2 of RTI application:
It is unable to trace out the demarcation application with the help of Sy. No. mentioned in this application. So, kindly provide RD No./RC No. of the application submitted to trace out the application…”
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Shri Biswanath Sen, Tehsildar/APIO present through videoconference.
The Complainant at the outset informed the Commission that his issue pertaining to demarcation of land has been resolved yet the ground raised in the instant Complaint may be taken into consideration for just disposal of this matter.
The respondent submitted that point-wise reply with available information has already been provided to the appellant.
Decision:
The instant matter being a complaint under the RTI Act, no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgment decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011: AIR 2012 SC 864. The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon perusal of the facts on record, the Commission finds that an appropriate reply has been given by the Respondent now vide letter dated 28.02.2025 and he tendered his apology for delayed reply. No mala-fide is established on part of the PIO in this case. Here, it is relevant to quote 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....”
Notwithstanding the above, the Commission notes that a pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench regarding GNCTD in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated PIO’s and FAA’s of almost all Public Authorities under GNCTD and in this case as well, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID’s which is violation of instructions on the subject.
In this regard, the Commission finds it pertinent to refer its own judgment dated 02.07.2012, passed in Second Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000971, wherein it has been held as under:
“9. . . . . . . .. Furthermore, commission notes that while replying to the applicant vide letter dated 31 March 2011 the former CPIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature which is eligible and does not give out the identity of the CPIO.
10. CPIO is directed to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future.”
The Commission would also like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, wherein following observations have been made which are as under:
“It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats. Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned.”
Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act
In view of above, an advisory, is issued to Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav, OSD to Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar Administration to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority’s office and issue a direction to their PIO’s and FAA’s to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeal in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005.
The Secretary (Personnel) Andaman & Nicobar administration is also directed to sensitize their officials regarding the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the PIO is directed to place a copy of this order before the competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Information Commissioner
Citation: Narayan Mandal v. Office of the Assistant PIO, Tehsildar, Diglipur, North Andaman, CIC/UTOAN/C/2023/135961; Date of Decision : 06.03.2025