Central Information Commission
R Peter John vs Prime Minister'S Office on 10 April, 2020
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/PMOIN/A/2018/141809-BJ
Mr. R. Peter John (Adv.)
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Under Secretary
Prime Minister's Office (PMO), South Block
New Delhi - 110011
...प्रनतिािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.03.2020
Date of Decision : 10.04.2020
Date of RTI application 12.03.2018
CPIO's response 23.03.2018
Date of the First Appeal 31.03.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 27.04.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 04.07.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding the number of letters received from the Government of Tamil Nadu in respect of Kauvery issues, till the date of filing of the RTI application; the number of reply letters sent to the Government of Tamil Nadu; certified copies of letters sent to the O/o the PM of India by the CM of Tamil Nadu, till the date of filing of the RTI application and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 23.03.2018, stated that the information sought is wide and pertained to various Sections/Wings, compilation of required information would disproportionately divert the public resources and attract provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 27.04.2018, upheld the CPIO's response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 3
Appellant: Mr. R. Peter John (Adv.) through TC;
Respondent: Mr. Praveen Kumar (US) and CPIO through TC;
In view of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country, both the parties were heard on phone. The Appellant consistently maintained that a reply was not received by him. In its reply, the Respondent explained that the issue may have been dealt with from time to time in several files spread over different years and therefore, it was not feasible to locate the information at one place. He specifically raised the provision of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005, where compilation of such information could disproportionately divert the public resources. During the hearing, the Respondent was narrated various dimensions of the Kauvery issues raised by several CMs and it was suggested that the Appellant could focus on the specific period to enable them to identify and locate the details sought by him. The Appellant appreciated the concerns expressed by the Respondent and agreed to re-address his application accordingly.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 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."
Furthermore, 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."Page 2 of 3
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."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (बबमल जुल्का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणत सत्यावपत प्रनत) (K.L. Das) (के.एल.िास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 10.04.2020 Page 3 of 3