Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1256
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, IC
Ved Prakash Gupta – Appellant
Versus
PIO, Office of the Cantonment Board, Dehradun – Respondent
CIC/DODEF/C/2023/148259
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Shri Mukesh Kumar
The Central Information Commission's role is limited to determining mala fide intent in denial of information under the RTI Act, requiring genuine and bona fide belief from the PIO regarding non-disclosure.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18 - Complaint regarding denial of information - Complainant filed RTI application on 04.10.2023; response provided by CPIO on 02.11.2023; first appeal filed on 14.11.2023 - Complainant did not appear for hearings, and no malafide intent was established against the PIO - Commission found timely and point-wise reply given, thus no further direction for disclosure could be issued. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 6)
(B) Role of Central Information Commission - The Commission's role is limited to assessing whether information was denied with mala fide intent or unreasonable cause, not to substitute its views for that of the PIO. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The complainant filed an RTI application seeking information which was responded to by the CPIO. The complainant filed a first appeal but did not appear for the subsequent hearings.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the PIO provided a timely and point-wise reply, and no mala fide was established.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the PIO acted with mala fide intent in denying information.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the PIO's belief regarding the non-disclosure of information must be genuine and bona fide, and penalties can only be imposed in cases of mala fide or unreasonable conduct.
Result: Complaint disposed of.
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwar
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 04.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 02.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 14.11.2023
First Appellate Authority’s order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14.12.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 04.10.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 02.11.2023 stating as under:
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 14.11.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission dated 07.03.2025 filed by the respondent is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
“…2. It is submitted that vide appeal under reference, the submission of requisite information of RTI of Shri Ved Prakash Gupta, ******** Dehradun Cantt dated 04 Oct 2023 is enclosed herewith:
a) RTI reply by CPIOs dated 02 Nov 2023 enclosed as ANNEXURE ’A’.
b) Letter of 1st Appeal dated 22 Nov 2023 issued to Shri Ved Prakash Gupta as ANNEXURE ’B’.
c) Report of post man that the appellant house is locked as ANNEXURE ’C’.
d) The report of appellant not present in 1st Appeal as ANNEXURE ’D’.
e) Letter of 1st Appeal dated 14 Dec 2023 issued to Shri Ved Prakash Gupta as ANNEXURE ’E’.
3. With reference to second call of the appeal dated 14 Dec 2023, the appellant neither appeared for hearing nor any letter was issued by him for attending the 1st appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar, Office Superintendent-cum-PIO present through video-conference.
The respondent, by inviting the attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission stated that timely point-wise reply has already been provided to the complainant which is admitted by himself. However, hearing notice of first appeal sent to the complainant has been received back undelivered with the postal remark ‘door locked’. There is no malafide intent to obstruct the flow of information.
Decision
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records notes that the instant matter being a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement 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 timely and point-wise reply has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated 02.11.2023.
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....”
Intervention of the C
