ORDER

1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central GST Commissionerate, Daman, DC, Vapi, Guajart, seeking information on three points, including, inter-alia:-

(i) lf all the ORIGINAL documents, Registers were returned back to the company;

(ii) lf yes, on which date. Which all ORIGINAL documents were returned back;

(iii) Provide copy of the acknowledgement by the company and copy of Excise covering letter under which those documents were returned.

2. The CPIO responded on 21.05.2019. The complainant filed the first appeal dated nil which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 04.07.2019. Thereafter, he 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, 2005.

Hearing:

3. The complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Sunil Kumar Kaushal, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 29.01.2021 and the same has been taken on record.

5. The complainant contended that complete information has not been provided to him till date by the respondent.

6. The respondent submitted that the vide order dated 04.07.2019, the FAA directed the CPIO to provide information to the complainant on his RTI application dated 23.04.2019. Therefore, in compliance of the FAA order, on 02.08.2019, point-wise reply/information has been provided to the complainant. The reply was seen during the hearing.

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 after the directions of the First Appellate Authority.

8. The Commission observed that the respondent ab initio has denied the disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. But after the directions of the First Appellate Authority, the CPIO has informed the complainant that the copy of acknowledgment is not available in their records. The Commission is of the view that if the information is not available in their records then the same should have been informed to the complainant at the time of giving reply to the RTI application. The Commission observed that the reply given by the respondent is wrong and deficient. The respondent is directed to be cautious in future and ensure that appropriate reply should be furnished to the RTI applicants.

9. 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 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