Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, a complaint was filed - PIO (President Secretariat): RTI Application was not received by the concerned section - CIC is satisfied with the explanation as the RTI application was not received by PIO
4 Mar, 2024Information sought and background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.01.2023 seeking information on following points:-
“1. Educational qualifications, additional certificates of Government, semi government and Private institute issued of each employee who had worked in the institute on any post since establishment till date.
2. Details of department vehicles for commutation. Number plate, chasis number, Document with the kilometers all the vehicles of the department move per day, average of the vehicle, a copy of P.U.C., license, third party insurance, fitness certificate, entry of peon book, G.P.S. record of 6 years. Andundertaking that the vehicles have never been used for personal use.
3. Information whether department has been using covid kit and S.O.P. as per G.O.I. norms, for the staff, visitors and the students. If yes, provide the relevant documents and photo.
4. Status of the R.T.I. sent in August 2020, on 5.7.2021 and 22.8. 2021, 5.12.2021, 20.3.2022, other times Also provide copies of first appeals to the Collector in December 2020, 4.8.21 and again in 2021. Reason to neglect it.
5. Copies of fitness certificate, Aadhar card, P.A.N. car, ration card, some other address proof of all the employees of the department presently working.
6. The visitor's entry in visitor's book / visitor's slip during the year 2010 to 2021. If not maintained, state the reason why the book was kept unused.
7. The details of cultural activities organized and participated during 2011 to 2022 along with photographs, circular issued for selection, invitations sent to the schools and separate training sessions a list of qualified selectors with their qualification.
8. And other related information.”
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present
Respondent: Smt Rubina Chauhan, CPIO and Dy Secretary
The Complainant stated that no reply was provided against the RTI application, till date. He added that information was critical to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and since no action was taken on his petition by the concerned ministry he had filed the grievance petition before the President’s Secretariat being the superior authority.
Smt Rubina Chauhan reiterated her written submission dated 14.02.2024 the relevant extracts of which are as under:
“In this regard, it is humbly submitted that the RTI Application dated 05.01.2023 has not been received in concerned sections of this Secretariat. Further, it is observed from the attached RTI application dated 05.01.2023, the information sought is not related with this Secretariat. No further information rests with this Secretariat. The appellant may be requested to approach concerned Public Authority directly in accordance with Hon'ble CIC order No. CIC/PRSEC lA120191657l05 dated 07.04.2021.”
Decision
In the light of the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is satisfied with the explanation provided by the Respondent as the RTI application was not received by the CPIO.
In a Complaint filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 the Commission is only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to an unreasonable cause. Furthermore, the legal position with regard to the powers of the Commission u/s 18 is no longer res integra since the pronouncement of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. v. State of Manipur and Ors, Civil Appeal Nos.10787-10788 of 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P(C) No.32768-32769/2010) decided on 12.12.2011 wherein it was held that Section 18 and 19 serve two different purposes and one cannot be a substitute for another.
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. Accordingly, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Complaint which is dismissed accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Amit Kumar Vanrajbhai Naik v. President Secretariat, CIC/PRSEC/C/2023/113340; Date of Decision : 20.02.2024