Central Information Commission
Mohammad Aamir vs Aligarh Muslim University on 28 June, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/ALMUV/C/2019/655373
Mohammad Aamir ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Aligarh Muslim University,
RTI Cell, Aligarh - 202002, Uttar Pradesh. .... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25/06/2021
Date of Decision : 25/06/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 18/09/2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : nil
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application on 18.09.2019 seeking following information:-1 2 3
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a Complaint to the Commission.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present. ( Contact number of the Complainant not available on the record) Respondent: Mohd. Abdul Hamid, Assistant Registrar & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that notice of hearing served to the Complainant was received back with the postal remarks "Addressee Left". Also, the facts remains that the contact details of the Complainant were not available in the records.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 23.06.2021, relevant portion of which is as under -
I. "The Complainant Mr. Mohammad Amir, resident of 4/138,Anus Lodge Gali No. 2, Purani Chungi Qila Road, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh - 202002 filed an RTI Application vide Registration No. ALMUV/R/2019/50359 dated 18/09/2019.
II. The office of the AMU Centra Jangipur, Murshidabad received on 25/09/2019 through the office of the CAPIO,AMU,Aligarh- 20202 vide Letter R.No. 269/CAPIO/RTIMIS-P/F/19-20dated 19/09/2019.
III. The reply of the RTI Application sent to the information seeker through speed post vide no. EW176800560 dated 11/10/2019 (as per office record) as well as the copy of the same also sent to the CAPIO,AMU,Aligarh-202--2 for information (copy enclosed).4
IV. Mr. Mohammad Amit, esident of 4/138,Anus Lodge Gali No. 2, Purani Chungi Qila Road, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh - 202002 filed an appeal vide Registration No. ALMUV/A/2019/600979 dated 15/11/2019 against RTI Application vide Registration No. ALMUV/R/2019/50359 dated 18/09/2019 and received on 23/11/2019 through the office of the CAPIO,AMU,Aligarh- 20202 vide letter R.No. 75/CAPIO/RTIMIS-P/A/19-20 dated 18/11/2019.
V. The reply of the RTI Appeal send to the information seeker through speed post vide no. xxxxxxxxxxx dated 13/12/2019.......
...we received a number of RTIs from the same address but the name of the information seeker was different, that's why an ambiguity arose relating to the authenticity of the information seeker. In this regard, the Centre asked from the information seeker to provide the valid identity and address proof so that the information may be given to a genuine person."
CPIO lastly apprised the Commission that no response has been received from the complainant so far.
Decision:
The current milieu of the COVID pandemic has necessitated the Commission to take some extraordinary steps in the disposal of cases to avoid further backlog and delays subverting the very purpose of RTI Act which includes inter alia hearing cases through audio conferencing. The instant case being one such instance where even so the Complainant could not be heard for want of contact details, the Commission is constrained to dispose of the case after hearing submissions of the CPIO and perusing the case records on merits.
In doing so, 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 Application ; as the queries raised by the Complainant are rather vague and speculative based on which he has sought clarifications from the CPIO which do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act; yet a timely response has been given by CPIO to assist the Complainant by keeping in line with the letter and spirit of RTI Act. The Complainant 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 5 CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
It will be relevant here to cite certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act. The relevant extracts of the said judgments are reproduced hereunder: Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] 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. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any 6 electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed...."
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating 7 authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Now, considering the fact that the notice of hearing served to the Complainant has been received back undelivered with the postal remarks "Addressee Left" and also no contact details of the Complainant were provided with the instant Complaint; the Commission deems it not feasible to prolong the matter further and upholds CPIO's submission.
In view of aforesaid observation, no action is warranted in the matter.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani((सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner((सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 8