PIO: RTI Application was misplaced and could not be traced which resulted into delay in dissemination of information - CIC: There is no malafide denial of information on the part of the CPIO and hence no action is warranted u/s 18 and 20 of the RTI Act

Information sought and background of the case:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.02.2023 seeking information on following points:-

“I am registered pharmacist in RPC Jaipur presently working regularly post at AIIMS Rishikesh Now I am getting my registration transferred to Uttarakhand pharmacy council and I have passed my Diploma in pharmacy (2006_2008) from SGNR pharmaceuticals sciences SGNR Rajasthan But Uttarakhand pharmacy council had asked for APPROVAL LETTER AND ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE of institute during your Diploma period so I requested to provide me letter and certificate (Through your channel because Rajasthan pharmacy council is not available in ONLINE and offline Platform of RTI)”

Aggrieved and dissatisfied with no response from the CPIO within time limit, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

PIO has furnished reply dated 26.02.2024 as under :

“… D.Pharm course conducted at Sri Ganganagar Institute Of Pharmaceutical Sciences tantia Higher Education Institutes Campus near Riico Bus Stand Hanumangarh Road sri Ganganagar, (Rajasthan), is approved from 2006- 2007 to 2011-2012 academic session for the purpose of registration as a pharmacist u/s 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948…”

The Appellant filed first Appeal dated 11.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 26.02.2024 upheld the reply furnished by the PIO. Written submission dated Nil has been received from the PIO, PCI and same has been taken on record for perusal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Complainant: Absent

Respondent: Ms. Pratima Tiwari, Deputy Secretary, PCI

The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly furnished to the Complainant from their official record. Upon being queried regarding reason for the delay in furnishing the reply, the PIO stated that the instant RTI Application was misplaced and could not be traced which resulted into delay in dissemination of information. She tendered her unconditional apology for the said delay.

Decision:

At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Complainant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.

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 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. However, Commission expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the PIO in having provided late reply on the instant RTI Application. Commission cautions the PIO to remain extremely careful in future and acquaint himself/herself well with the RTI Act, 2005 so that such lapses do not recur. No further action lies.

Complaint is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Sohan Lal v. Pharmacy Council of India, Complaint No. CIC/PHRCI/C/2023/618720; Date of Decision : 27.02.2024