Central Information Commission
Saidur Rahman vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 1 August, 2019
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NRALF/A/2018/100447
Saidur Rahman ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondent
M/o. Railways, DFM, Northern
Railway, DRM's Office,
Hazratganj, Lucknow Division,
Lucknow, UP-226001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 24-10-2017 FA : 23-11-2017 SA:02-01-2018
CPIO : Not on record FAO : 14-12-2017 Hearing: 30-07-2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o. Railways, Northern Railway, Lucknow seeking information on four points regarding DoPT circular no. 10/1/2013-IR dated 06.10.2015, including, inter-alia: (i) certified copy of the documents relating to the decision of the Accounts branch for court case of EDP Centre/Lucknow; and (ii) certified copy of the CAT order in O.A. 519/2014 vide which the CAT/Lko has refused to take decision in the matter, etc. Page 1 of 6
2. Due to non-receipt of response from the CPIO/FAA, the appellant filed a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete information to him and action should be taken against the respondent.
Hearing:
3. The appellant participated in the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri Sanjay Kumar, DFM participated in the hearing through video- conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 24.10.2017.
5. The respondent submitted that available information has already been provided to the appellant vide their letters dated 13.11.2017, 14.12.2017, 18.01.2018. The reply was read out during the hearing, which was found to be satisfactory.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that complete available information has been provided to the appellant as per his RTI application dated 24.10.2017. The Commission further observes that the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application is more in the nature of seeking opinion/advice from the CPIO. The Commission further observes that in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve problems raised by the appellant; or to furnish replies to situational queries; or to furnish clarifications. The CPIO only provides information available with him or Page 2 of 6 held by him. Thus, the appellant cannot expect the respondent to take certain action or initiate action as desired by him.
7. The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"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 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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."
Page 3 of 6Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had 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 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. "....the 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."
Page 4 of 6Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:
"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 authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
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 authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
8. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 5 of 610. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 30-07-2019
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
M/o. Railways,
DFM, Northern Railway, DRM's Office,
Hazratganj, Lucknow Division,
Lucknow, UP-226001
2. Shri Saidur Rahman
Page 6 of 6