Central Information Commission
Lila Dhar Bhatt vs Central Reserve Police Force on 26 April, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2016/000390
Dated 24.04.2017
Appellant : Shri Lila Dhar Bhatt
House No. 158, Village Bachidharma,
PO Halduchaur, District- Nainital- 263139
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer.
O/o the Directorate General,
Central Reserve Police Force CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 24.04.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application : 19.09.2015
CPIO's reply : 26.11.2015
First appeal : 13.12.2015
FAA Order : 15.01.2016
Second Appeal : 16.02.2016
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), North Block, Delhi seeking information regarding the withholding of her pensionary benefits by the CRPF on account of his name being linked in a complaint concerning the embezzlement of government money by the National Mission for Bamboo Application (NMBA) in the procurement of bamboo huts by the CRPF, including, inter alia, (i) whether CIC/SB/A/2016/000390 Page 1 a Preliminary Enquiry was conducted by the Provisional Wing of the MHA in the embezzlement of Government money and (ii) whether the statement of any of the officers involved in the procurement of bamboo huts have been recorded.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that irrelevant and unwanted information was furnished by the CPIO, CRPF and he was not satisfied with the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide correct and accurate information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Shri Lila Dhar Bhatt had sought an exemption from appearing personally vide his email dated 21.04.2017. The respondents, Shri Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Commandant, and Shri Gagan Bharti, Sub- Inspector were present in person.
4. The respondent submitted that vide letter dated 26.11.2015 complete and point wise information, as per the available records, was furnished to the appellant. The respondent further submitted that the FAA vide order dated 15.01.2016, had informed the appellant that the information sought on various points of the RTI application was clarificatory in nature, and that under the RTI Act, the CPIO is not obliged to do research and make deductions, draw inferences or give opinions on hypothetical issues. Hence, the information sought with respect to those points does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that under the RTI Act, the Public Information Officer can only provide information which is available with him and he is not supposed to create, generate or interpret information or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. The Commission further observes CIC/SB/A/2016/000390 Page 2 that due information has been furnished to the appellant by the respondent vide letter dated 26.11.2015. Hence, no further action is warranted in the matter.
6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer CIC/SB/A/2016/000390 Page 3