ORDER

1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o. the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner, Rajasthan, seeking information on three points, including, inter-alia:-

(i) Copy of complaint which was received against him and was sent to Anti Corruption Bureau;

(ii) What are the comments made on the said complaint by the competent officer, etc.

2. Being aggrieved with the response given by the respondent, the complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Hearing:

3. The complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri L D Khatri, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 08.02.2021 and the same has been taken on record.

5. The complainant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 01.03.2019. The complainant also referred to a previous Commission’s order vide file no. CIC/CCITJ/A/2017/150645-BJ dated 10.10.2018 and submitted that the respondent has given contradictory information. On one hand, the respondent stated that in compliance of the said order that the complaint was sent to competent authority but in the reply given in response to present RTI application, the respondent stated that no complaint was sent to the Anti-Corruption Bureau. 6. The respondent reiterated the reply given by the CPIO and FAA and submitted that reply/information as per the documents available on record has been provided to the complainant within stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The respondent further submitted that they have inadvertently stated in the previous order that the complaint was sent to the competent authority but the said position was clarified to the complainant that no such complaint was sent to the competent authority.

Decision:

7. This Commission is not adjudicating on furnishing the information to the complainant and therefore, the legal issue to be decided herein is whether there is any malafide of the CPIO which attracts penal action u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. The complainant has expressed that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent. To this, the respondent categorically submitted that information as available on record has been provided to the complainant.

8. The Commission further observed that any previous order of the Commission cannot be reviewed at this stage. However, the respondent has explained that they have inadvertently stated that the complaint was sent to the competent authority but the said position was clarified to the complainant that no such complaint was sent to the competent authority.

9. The Commission observed that the respondent has informed the factual position in the matter to the complainant within stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

10. While examining the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. inCivil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-

“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.