2023 (2) TMI 472 - Commission - Indian Laws

Disruption in the easement right of way to his (complainant) home - laying down of wi-fi transmission cable lines by the Jio Fibrenet Ltd. passing through the house of compainant - complainant is aggrieved by the fact that the CPIO did not facilitate him complete desired information after liasioning with the private entity i.e. Jio Fibrenet Pvt. Ltd. as per Section 2(f) read with Section 2(j) of RTI Act - HELD THAT - The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of the parties finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the Respondent no. 1 during hearing as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Complainant in terms of RTI Act. Moreover, the Commission is not inclined to accept the contention of the Complainant for initiating penal action against the CPIO in the absence of any malafide ascribed on their part. In this regard, the attention of the Complainant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg Anr. 2012 (6) TMI 176 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein it was held that Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. Considering the inability of the Complainant in substantiating his level of dissatisfaction with the CPIO s reply in the instant Complaints, no further action is warranted in the instant matters - Complaint disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Provision of GST-related information by the CPIO.
2. Allegation of incomplete and misleading information provided by the CPIO.
3. Request for penal action against the CPIO.
4. Grievance regarding disturbance of easement rights.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Provision of GST-related information by the CPIO:
The complainant sought detailed GST-related information concerning Jio Digital Fibre Pvt. Ltd. The CPIO provided a pointwise reply stating that the place of service is Ghaziabad, falling under the jurisdiction of CGST/SGST Ghaziabad. The CPIO also provided the names and accounting codes of services registered within the jurisdiction. However, for several queries, the CPIO indicated that the information pertains to CGST/SGST Ghaziabad.

2. Allegation of incomplete and misleading information provided by the CPIO:
The complainant expressed dissatisfaction, arguing that the CPIO provided incomplete information after a significant delay and merely forwarded information from an Assistant Commissioner. The complainant contended that the CPIO ignored the definition of information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and provided contradictory responses regarding the place of provision of services (Ghaziabad vs. Haryana).

3. Request for penal action against the CPIO:
The complainant requested the Commission to conduct an inquiry under Section 18 of the RTI Act and penalize the CPIO under Section 20 for alleged malafide intentions. The Commission, however, found no malafide intentions on the part of the CPIO, referencing several judgments, including those of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which emphasized that penalties should only be imposed in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct.

4. Grievance regarding disturbance of easement rights:
The complainant also raised a grievance about the disruption of his easement right of way due to the laying of cable wires by Jio Fibrenet Pvt. Ltd. The Commission noted that such grievances fall outside the mandate of the RTI Act, as the Act is concerned with providing information held by public authorities and does not adjudicate disputes between parties.

Decision:
The Commission concluded that the CPIO's replies were adequate and found no grounds for penal action. It referenced several judicial precedents to support its decision, highlighting that penalties under the RTI Act are not warranted in the absence of malafide intentions. The Commission also reiterated that grievances related to easement rights are beyond the scope of the RTI Act. Consequently, the complaints were disposed of without further action.