ORDER

1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Steel Authority of India, Jharkhand, seeking information regarding provide list and details of the separated employee or going to be retire from your BSL unit in the Financial Year 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018- 2019, 2019-2020, 2020-21 & 2021-22 and as per the format as attached along with the RTI application, 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 was represented through his representative Shri CA Avinash Kumar who attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Ms. Anju Singh, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The complainant submitted his written submissions dated 27.01.2021 and the same has been taken on record. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 22.01.2021 and the same has been taken on record.

5. The representative of the complainant contended that complete information has not been provided to the complainant till date by the respondent. He stated that there is a delay in giving reply on the part of the respondent. The representative of the complainant stated that atleast the names of the employees could have been provided to the complainant as sought in his RTI application.

6. The respondent an online reply dated 26.06.2019 was given to the complainant wherein the tabular information as per the documents available on record has been provided to the complainant except the personal information of third party. The respondent, with respect to names of the employees, submitted that names of the employees for the various categories has not been maintained in their record in compiled form. The information as available on record has been provided to the complainant. On query from the Commission regarding delay in giving reply. On this, the respondent submitted that the complainant has sought vast information and it took time in collecting the information. Further, there is no malafide intention in obstructing the information.

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 except the personal information of third party. The Commission is of the view that if the complainant is not satisfied with the reply given by the respondent then he could have filed second appeal before the Commission in order to adjudicate such issues.

8. 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.

However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied tha