Central Information Commission
N Srinivasan vs Controller General Of Defence Accounts ... on 26 May, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CGDAC/A/2018/150162
N Srinivasan ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o CGDA,
Ulan Baatar Road,
Palam,
Delhi Cantt - 110010. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 30/01/2018
CPIO replied on : 15/03/2018
First appeal filed on : 11/04/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 09/05/2018
Second Appeal dated : 08/08/2018
Date of Hearing : 21/05/2020
Date of Decision : 21/05/2020
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant sought to know if he was granted seniority under 'Catch-up' rule while being considered for promotion to various grades on various dates uptill his superannuation in the year 2011.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:1
The following were present:-
Appellant: No contact details were available and hence could not be contacted.
Respondent: Murari Kumar, Accounts Officer & CPIO, O/o CGDA, Ulan Baatar Road, Delhi Cantt, present on phone.
CPIO submitted that appropriate reply has been provided to the Appellant stating that under RTI Act, CPIO is not supposed to interpret information or provide clarifications. He further submitted that the Appellant subsequently filed another RTI Application dated 11.04.2018 based on the reply dated 15.03.2018 of the instant RTI Application, seeking additional clarifications on the 'Catch Up' rule, and the corresponding Appeal of the said RTI Application has been already disposed of by this bench on similar lines vide order dated 05.02.2020 in File No. CIC/CGDAC/A/2018/150797.
Decision The current milieu of the pandemic COVID-19 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 Appellant could not be heard for want of contact details, Commission deems it fit in the interest of the letter and spirit of RTI Act to decide the matter based on the grounds of Appeal mentioned in the Second Appeal.
In doing so, Commission observes that Appellant has insisted in his Appeal that he has sought to know his seniority during his promotion to various grades on various dates and that this information is available in the concerned DPC proceedings. However, a bare perusal of the contents of the RTI Application suggest that no information has been sought as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act as Appellant has required the CPIO to state if he was granted seniority, if yes, copy of seniority list and if no, then reasons thereof. This clearly does not amount to seeking specific information but seeks the deduction of the CPIO based on various DPC proceedings, thus requires creation of information, which is not prescribed under RTI Act.2
File No: CIC/CGDAC/A/2018/150162 It may be noted that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of RTI Act to include deductions; inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions of 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 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 KhanapuramGandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors[SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009],Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:3
"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. 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...."
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 4 File No: CIC/CGDAC/A/2018/150162 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."
In view of the foregoing discussion, Commission finds the instant Appeal to be bereft of any merit and upholds the submission of the CPIO.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140/ [email protected]
हरो साद सेन,उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
5