Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2508
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, IC
Phool Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Shri Parveer Kumar, Shri Rakesh Das – Respondent
CIC/REVDP/C/2023/670250
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:
Timely compliance under the RTI Act is mandated, but absence without malicious intent may lead to dismissal of complaints against officials if explanations are deemed bona fide.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 20(1) and 20(2) - Complaint regarding non-receipt of information - The Commission directed an inquiry into the PIO's actions, expressing displeasure at their absence and tardiness in responding to a RTI application. The PIO's explanation for delay was acceptable, leading to dismissal of the complaint. (Paras 31, 51, 53)
(B) Public Authority's Duty - The duty to respond within stipulated timeframes is essential to uphold transparency and adherence to the RTI Act, signifying it as critical to maintaining citizens' rights.
Facts of the case:
Complainant filed an RTI application seeking Land Status Report but received no information within the statutory period. Following escalations, the Complainant approached the Commission due to perceived denial of information.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found no malicious intent in the Respondent's actions and acknowledged their subsequent compliance with RTI obligations.
Issues: The case revolved around the conduct of the PIO regarding the timely provision of necessary information under the RTI Act and the implications of their absence during hearings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that absence or delay without malicious intent does not violate RTI provisions; an explanation can be deemed bona fide leading to dismissal of complaints against the officers.
Result: Complaint dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint led by delays in providing rti information. (Para 2) |
2. Shri Rakesh Das Office of the SDM (Narela), MPCC Building, Naya Bans, Delhi – 110082 ….(cid:11)(cid:12)तवाद(cid:15)गण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 29.01.2024 Date of Decision : 31.01.2024 Date of SCN hearing : 25.06.2025 Date of SCN Decision : 03.07.2025 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 07-06-2022 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 01-08-2022 First Appellate Authority’s order : 28-09-2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.06.2022 seeking the following information:
“It is to bring into your kind notice with respect to LAND STATUS REPORT(NOC) which was applied on 09/04/2022 having acknowledgment number 90580000003530 and secondly dated 15/04/2022 having acknowledgment number 90580000003592 and the statutory period given by the authorities is 15 days. Today (Screenshot enclosed) nearly a month and half is lapsed and still nothing has been received from the authorities.
Kindly look into the matter and do the needful Further please inform me on email id and phone number given below.”
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 01.08.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 28.09.2022, held as under:-
“Whereas notice issued to both the parties to appear for 01.8.2022, but hearing was not held, due to PO was busy in administrative work and none appeared for the appellant, so, case adjourned for 08.08.2022, 23.08.2022 and 06.09.2022 respectively. On 06.09.2022 Sh. Phool Singh, appellant and Sh. Manish Gulia, NTANI. for PIO/SDM/NI. were present. During the hearing, Representative of PIO stated that reply of RTI application has already been provided to the appellant. Pursued the RTI application and appeal. Appellant has been advised to file a fresh application of issuance of NOC/Land Status Report. Hence no further direction is required at this stage.”
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing on 29.01.2024:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present in Person Respondent: Absent The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on
31.01.2024:
“Keeping in view the facts of the case the Commission notes that the instant matter is a Complaint under the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given and it is only required to be ascertained if the information has been denied with a malafide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. On the perusal of the documents on record the Commission observes that there is a grain of truth in the allegations. Accordingly, the ADM of the concerned district is directed to conduct an inquiry in the matter and furnish his report to the Commission within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Further, since the CPIO remained absent during the hearing proceedings to present their case, the Commission admonishes the conduct of the concerned CPIO for not providing proper information to the Complainant within the stipulated timeframe as mandated in the RTI Act and for remaining absent during the hearing. In view of the above the Commission directs, the officer working as CPIO at the relevant time and the current CPIO, to show cause why punitive action under Section 20 (1) should not be initiated against him/her besides direction under Section 20 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005 for disciplinary proceedings. The CPIO is required to submit his written statements both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper compliance/add within four weeks from the date of receiving this order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Show-Cause Hearing on 22.05.2024 Complainant: Not Present. Respondent: Not Present.
The Commission has passed the following observations and dir
