Central Information Commission
U Kumar vs Petroleum And Explosives Safety ... on 4 February, 2022
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/PAESO/A/2020/696205
U Kumar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Petroleum and Explosives
Safety Organization, North
Circle Joint Chief Controller
of Explosives, RTI Cell, Hall
No. 502 and 507, Level-5,
Block B, old CGO Complex
NH-IV, Faridabad,
Haryana- 121001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03/02/2022
Date of Decision : 03/02/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23/09/2020
CPIO replied on : 06/10/2020
First appeal filed on : 19/10/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10/12/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.09.2020 seeking the following information;
1. "I seek information/guidelines/details/copy of specific rules and regulation regarding setting up solar power Generation plant near a site used for purpose of possession and sale of explosives as per stated in Table of Purpose and authority in part I of schedule IV annexed to the Explosives Rules 2008.
For your kind reference, the type and quantities of explosives in concerns are in the table below:
2. How many solar power generation plants are set up near a site used for storage or manufacturing of Explosives in India?
3. How many such solar projects cases have come under your preview in India?
What decision has been given by Your esteemed organization for setting up the solar plant?
4. For your information please, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5. Is there a requirement to maintain a safety distance between a explosive storage site/unit and a solar power Generation plant which is unmanned (similar to farm activity) for large part of the year? If yes, what is the Minimum safety distance? Kindly provide a reference document for the same."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 06.10.2020 by giving reference to Explosive Rules 2008 which is available on the website of PESO.
2Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.10.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Advocate Arav Pandit present through audio- conference.
Respondent: Dr. A P Singh, Dy. Controller of Explosives & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Advocate of the Appellant while narrating the factual context of RTI Application restricted his arguments to the fact that CPIO has not answered till date his query regarding whose responsibility is it to ensure that minimum safety distance is complied with if an explosive storage site/ unit is constructed near the solar power generation plant .
The CPIO relied on his written submission dated 28.01.2022 wherein it is mentioned that the required safety distance for explosives storage magazine for various explosives have been mentioned in SCHEDULE VII of Explosive Rules, 2008; a copy of which has been annexed by him along with his written submission. He further apprised the Commission that he has also endorsed a copy of his written submission to the Appellant as well.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the Appellant has not sought for any information per se as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as he has sought for interpretation and deduction by the CPIO based on speculative queries, yet the CPIO has provided a very detailed clarification by giving reference of the Explosive Rules,2008 of PESO. In addition, the CPIO also provided the subtle clarifications to assist the Appellant which is in spirit of the RTI Act and the merits of it cannot be called into question.
The Appellant may note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions, inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted 3 as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to the penal provisions of the RTI Act. It will be relevant here to cite certain judgments on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f)of RTI Act of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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) 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 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.
4Under 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 authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds no scope of action in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6