Can't Order Furnishing Of Denied Information U/s Sec. 18, RTI Act, Inquiry is Limited To 'Intentional' Denial: CIC
The Central Information Commission, New Delhi bench comprising Shri Heeralal Samariya (Chief Information Commissioner) dismissed a complaint filed by an aggrieved consumer whose requested information was not appropriately furnished by the Department of Consumer Affairs, allegedly. The Central Information Commission noted that the scope of a complaint under Section 18 was limited to...
The Central Information Commission, New Delhi bench comprising Shri Heeralal Samariya (Chief Information Commissioner) dismissed a complaint filed by an aggrieved consumer whose requested information was not appropriately furnished by the Department of Consumer Affairs, allegedly. The Central Information Commission noted that the scope of a complaint under Section 18 was limited to the question of whether the denial of information was 'intentional' and did not extend to ordering the public authority to furnish information.
Brief Facts:
Shri Pavanesh (“Complainant”) filed an RTI application in the Department of Consumer Affairs (“Respondent”) seeking information regarding redressal and course of action against food product companies that sell products of lesser weight and claim more on the wrapper. The Respondent, in a short reply, informed the Complainant to approach the Controller of Legal Metrology of his respective state and provided a link to their website. Dissatisfied with the response, the Complainant filed a First Appeal with the Respondent. However, the decision did not come in his favour. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act in the Central Information Commission, New Delhi (“Commission”).
The Respondent contended that the information sought by the Complainant pertained to a violation of the Legal Metrology Act and the rules formed thereunder. Further, the Consumer Commissions take action under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is distinct in scope.
Observations of the Commission:
The Commission observed that the Respondent provided an appropriate reply to the Complainant as per the provisions of the RTI Act and no malafide intention could be imputed to the conduct of the Respondent. Therefore, the Commission held that no penal action was required against the Complainant.
Further, it noted that the Complainant had approached the Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act in the form of a 'complaint'. The appropriate action could have been filing an appeal in the Commission instead of a complaint. Reliance was placed on the case of the Chief Information Commissioner and Anr. vs State of Manipur and Anr. [Civil Appeal No.s 10787-10788 of 2011], wherein it was held that the Information Commissioner does not have the power to order access to information which was denied in the first place while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act. The limited inquiry under Section 18 is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In light of the aforementioned information, the Commission observed that there was no malafide intention on the part of the Respondent and hence, no action could be taken under Section 18 or Section 20 of the RTI Act. The Complaint was dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: Shri Pavanesh vs PIO, Department of Consumer Affairs
Complaint No.: CIC/DOCAF/C/2022/639905