Central Information Commission
R Natarajan vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public ... on 22 December, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/ARDEP/A/2019/141447/MPERS
R Natarajan ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Administration Reforms & PG
RTI Cell, Sardar Patel Bhavan, Parliament Street,
New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21/12/2021
Date of Decision : 21/12/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21/03/2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 10/04/2019
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21/08/2019
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.03.2019 seeking the following information referring to a complaint filed by him on 01.03.2019:
1. The Government Order pertaining to the non-performance of Police personnel who have been sacked by the Government as reported in the Indian Express dated 21.8.2017.
2. Please state on what day and date the information was passed on to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu and/or Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tamilnadu.
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.04.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Subsequently, the Appellant received a reply dated 06.08.2019 wherein reference was made to a certain letter dated 05.07.2019 filed by him and a public grievance was addressed. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, theappellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Tirth Ram, Under Secretary (PG) & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he has not received the desired information and being a social activist, he requires this information to bring accountability in the functioning of the government functionaries.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant was duly informed on 26.03.2019 itself that his grievance petition has been forwarded to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information that has been sought for in the RTI 2 Application as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon as the queries raised by the Appellant do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not sought for any specific information but has sought for interpretations and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO based on speculative queries. However, since the subject matter of the RTI Application referred to a complaint filed by him 01.03.2019, the CPIO in his wisdom informed the Appellant about the action taken on the same, which is in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 3 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4