Central Information Commission
K Vijayan vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 3 May, 2023
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/ESICO/A/2022/105252
K Vijayan ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE,
RTI CELL, PANCHDEEP BHAWAN,
NORTH SWARAJ ROUND,
THRISSUR-680020, KERALA. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24/04/2023
Date of Decision : 24/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04/10/2021
CPIO replied on : 26/10/2021
First appeal filed on : 29/10/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 13/12/2021
2nd Appeal received on : 31/01/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.10.2021 seeking the following information:1
"...1 Specify the date on which GFR 2005 was made applicable in ESIC and specify the Rule 257 of GFR, 2005 mentioned in letter No.54.A.20.11.(184).A/c.s. dated 29.9.2021 issued by the officer mentioned in point No.8 below.
2 Specify the date on which the second copy of service book was supplied to Shri K.Vijayan, Manager Grade-I then in service in accordance with Rule 257 (2) of GFR, 2005, and also specify the date from which it was started to supply second copy of service book to employees of ESIC in Kerala Region for keeping with them.
3. In case non-compliance of Rule 257(2) of GFR, 2005, specify the exemption order obtained for the same.
4. Specify whether Shri.K.Vijayan, DO (retired) has requested for replacement of lost copy of service book provided to him while in service as per his request submitted on 23 7.2021.
5. Specify whether any certified copy of service book and service cards were supplied to Shri K. Vijayan, DO (retired) as per his request dated 23.7.2021 with payment of copying fee required under S R.198.
6. Is there any instructions under FR/SR issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance O.M No F.12(16)-E.IV/6, dated 9th May, 1961 to supply a certified copy of the service book on quitting service by retirement on payment of certifying copy of Rs.5/- and followed by ESIC as per FR/SR published by DoPT.
7. Is there any instructions under FR/SR issued by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel & A.R, O M. No P-17012/279-LU dated 27th September, 1980 to supply a certified copy of service book to Gazette officers by charging a copying fee of Rs 5/- and follower, by ESIC as per FR/SR published by DoPT.
8. Specify whether the direction for payment of Rs.500/- towards supply a copy of service book under GFR Rule 257/288 issued vide letter No.54.A.2011 (184). A/vs dated 29.09.2021 by the Assistant Director (Finance), Regional Office, ESIC, Thrissur is based on the request by Shri.K.Vijayan, DD (retired) for supply of certified copy of service book and service cards not supplied to him while in service or on retirement as mentioned in his request dated 23.7.2021 by paying copying fee of Rs.5/- If yes specify the Rule 288 of GFR, 2017.
29. In case the demand for payment raised in point No.8 above is not for replacement of lost copy of service book provided under Rule 255 of GFR, 2005 . and Rule 288 of GFR, 2017 specify the Rules and instructions under which it was issued."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 26.10.2021 stating as under:
"1. Information not available.
2. Information not available.
3. Information not available.
4. No.
5. No.
6. No such instruction is seen as per the information available.
7. No such instruction is seen as per the information available.
8 & 9. The employee may have been given a duplicate Service Book while he was in service. He asked for a certified copy of service book after four years of his retirement. Since he has not submitted the duplicate copy for certification, an amount of Rs.500/- should be paid for duplicate copy as per GFR Rule 257/288(4).
Rule 288 (1) Service Book : Detailed Rules for maintenance of Service Books are contained in SRS. Service Books maintained in the establishment should be verified every year by the Head of Office who, after satisfying himself that the services of Government servants concerned are correctly recorded in each Service Book shall record the following certificate "Service verified from....(the date record from which the verification is made)....upto...(date)....."
Rule 288 (2) The Service Book of a government servant shall be maintained in duplicate. First copy shall be retained and maintained by the Head of Office and the second copy should be given to the government servant for safe custody as indicated below:
(i)To the existing employees - within six months of the date on which these rules become effective, if not already given.
(ii) To new appointees - within one month of the date of appointment.3
Rule 288 (3) : In January each year, the Government Servant shall hand over his copy of the Service Book to his office for updation. The office shall update and return it to the Government Servant within thirty days of its receipt.
Rule 288 (4): In case the Government Servants' copy is lost by the government servant, it shall be replaced on payment of a sum of Rs.500/-."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.10.2021. FAA's order dated 13.12.2021 held as under:
"I have perused the grievance raised by the appellant in his appeal and my findings/directions to the CPIO/Deemed CPIO are as follows.
Grievances raised in the appeal Reply / Directions to the CPIO/Deemed CPIO The CPIO has given incorrect reply The appellant has worked in this office in against Point No 1 The Appellant was various capacities including as the Head of given a direction to make payment by Office for the period 05.02.2018 to ESIC letter dated 29.9.2021 citing GFR 28.05.2018. The appellant knows that in the Rule 257 / 258. The CPIO has failed to absence of any other financial rules separately reply from which date the said Rules were in ESIC. GFR Rules as and when amended and in force in ESIC. Any Rules are framed by notified by the Govt of India are applicable to Government and its application for ESIC also The appellant may have discharged enforcement will also be notified by duties applying GFR 2005 or GFR 2018 as and Government. The information available when they are notified by Govt and made with the CPIO in this regard is not applicable in ESIC. provided stating : information not available. 1 This is the case to specify Rule 257 also.
The CPIO has given incorrect reply As stated above it is not known whether the against Point No.2.The information appellant during discharge of his duties as available with regard to supply of second Deputy Director of Administration Branch or copy of service book to Shri K Vijayan, later as the Head of the Office provided or Manager Grade -I as per Rule 257 made efforts to ensure delivery of 2nd copy of mentioned in ESIC letter was not provided Service Book to any of the officials including The date from which second copy of himself. This Appellate Authority has worked service book was started to supply to in this office during the period 2008 to 2012. employees of ESIC in Kerala Region also No copy of his service card was provided to not made available. him at any point of time or got verified by the undersigned to certify its contents. He is 4 therefore aware that 2nd copy of service book is not given to any of the employees.
With regard to Query No. 3, it is pertinent to note that the CPIO cannot provide any The CPIO has given incorrect reply interpretation of Rules. copy of information against Point No 3 The supply of Second which is not available with this office and Copy of Service Book to ESIC employees in therefore no malafide can be attributed to the Kerala is not seen commenced and CPIO/Deemed CPIO In view of the above, the therefore exemption details not made reply provided by the CPIO that information is available not available with regard to SI No 1, 2 & 3 of the application for information dated 04.10.2021 is in order.
The CPIO has given incorrect reply The applicant under RTI can seek information against Point No.6. ESIC is following FR / which is defined as follows:
SR issued by Government of India and the 'information' means any material in any form, same is available under Acts and Rules including records, documents, memos, e-mails, followed by DoPT. The CPIO has given opinions. Advises, press releases. circulars.
reply by not verifying the relevant orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers,
records. samples, models, data material held in any
The CPIO has given incorrect reply electronic form and information relating to
against Point No.7. ESIC is following FR / any private body which can be accessed by a
SR issued by Government of India and the public authority under any other law for the
same is available under Acts and Rules time being in force: -
followed by DoPT. The CPIO has given As stated above no such instructions were
reply by not verifying the relevant implemented in this office regarding handing
records. over of second copy of Service Book/Service
Cards.
The CPIO has given partial reply against As stated above, the appellant himself while
Point No.8. The CPIO has not given holding the charge of Administration Branch
correct information against first part of or as the Head of the Office, does not appear
the Point No.8 and just given reply to to have issued any 2nd copy of Service Book to
second part alone. any of the employees who worked in the office
The CPIO has not given any reply against at that point of time. Hence there is no
Point No.9. Any demand raised by Public question for a certified copy of his own service
Office should be based on valid statutory book. Since providing interpretation is not
powers with the authority. The CPIO has within the purview of the CPIO and hence as
not given any reply. the Appellate Authority, the undersigned also
cannot provide any interpretation to the
matters which can be interpreted by different
5
persons in different ways.
The appellant may also note that it is not possible to provide a copy of Service Book at Rs 5/- at present in view of the cost of duplication charges and man power involved in providing the certified copy of information. It was the responsibility of the appellant to obtain the Zed copy of Service Book/Service card while he was in active service and update the records periodically which apparently not done. The appellant is now trying to develop ingenious methods to obtain his service records at a cost of Rs.5/- and thereby trying to circumvent the provisions of RTI which makes it mandatory for him to pay Rs.2/- per page if his service cards are duplicated and given to him.
The appeal is therefore disposed off with directions to the CPIO to obtain information pertaining to Query No. 6 & 7 of the RTI application from the CPIO of ESIC Headquarters Office who is the Competent Authority to give a satisfactory reply to the said queries."
In compliance of FAA's Order, the CPIO vide letter dated 16.12.2021 replied to the Appellant as under:
"Please find enclosed copies of application dated 04.10.2021 under RTI Act, 2005. filed by Shri K Vijayan, Koonkkattil House, W.H.R.A. 126, Gosaikunnu West, Kuriachira P.O., Thrissur -- 680006, Appeal dated 29 10.2021 and the Order of the Appellate Authority vide Letter No. 54-Z 12/14/FAA/RTI-2021-Appeal dated 13.12.2021.
It is requested to provide the information sought by the applicant at Q.No 6 & 7 under intimation to this Office."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Jelson V A, Deputy Director & CPIO present through video- conference.6
The Appellant raised his following arguments in the instant Appeal (reproduced below in verbatim) -
"...The Public Authority ESIC has in fact issued a Manual on RTI Act revised up to 31.8.2011 in which under Chapter V page No.20 the Rules, Regulations, lnstructions, Manuals & Records held by ESIC or used by it's employees for discharge of it's functions has been published. There are 15 books in the list. The entry at Sl.No. 1 is the Employee's State lnsurance Act and at Sl. No.15 is the ESIC (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1959 by which clearly established the use of FR &SR by ESIC. lt does not indicate the use of GFR as such by ESIC.
Disregarding the Manual provided to CPIOs / Deemed CPIOs who discharge the statutory functions under the RTI Act the false information is provided to the Appellant. True copy of Chapter V page No.20 of the Manual published by ESIC is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A- 6.
2. xxx
3. The FAA Regional Director, ESIC Kerala in his order dated 13.12.2021 has stated against Point No.1 that : The Appellant knows that in the absence of any other Financial Rules separately in ESIC, GFR Rules as and when amended and notified by the Govt. of lndia are applicable to ESIC also. The Finance Related rules followed by ESIC is shown at Sl.No.6 in Annexure - A-6.
: ESIC Manual of Audit and Accounts (General Rules and Principles followed in Finance and Accounts Division). So the contention of FAA is that there is absence of any finance rules in ESIC is just an imagination. lf that is the case the said Rule book should found a place in the Employees' State lnsurance Act, 1948 or any subsequent decisions of ESIC which has not been disclosed by the CPIO as well as FAA. For example by an amendment to ESI Act section 45 H was introduced from 1.9.1991 by which certain provisions of the lncome Tax Act and lncome Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962 as in force from time to time were authorised to use by two category of officers of ESIC specified in Section 45-l as authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette , to exercise the powers. This does not means that they are the authority to decide lncome Tax matters also. The FAA formerly served in ESIC as an officer notified under Section 45-l is fully aware of the limited use of certain other Rules by ESIC and which cannot be exercised by any other officers of ESIC. It is settled law 7 that "expressio unlus est exclusio alterius ", which means that which is expressed excludes that which is not expressed. Hence the CPIO or CAPIO or the FAA should disclose how the GFR is accessed by the Assistant Director (Finance) and in particular Rule 257 / 288 when it is not a Rule used by it's employees as disclosed by ESIC in the Manual on RTI Act published by ESIC. The information not available is the reply given by the CPIO against Point No.1 . lt is quite strange how a Rule book not available has been accessed by it's officers. The information sought under Point No.2 and 3 also related GFR Rule invoked by the Assistant Director (Finance) for which also not given correct information stating information not available. The FAA in solidarity and camaraderie of officers have recorded his findings as : the reply provided by the CPIO that information or not available with regard to Sl. Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of the application for lnformation dated 04.10.2021 is in order, Hence the information provided is misleading.
4. The CPIO has given reply to point No. 6 and 7 related to FR /SR used by ESIC and in particular Published by DoPT as : No such instruction ls seen as per the information available. lt is noticed that computerisation in ESIC was completed and provided computers to all staff and officers of ESIC with internet access to government websites. ln case ESIC has not procured any FR/SR published by DoPT it is available on the website of Government of lndia, Department of Personnel and Training. xxx Disregarding the above facts the CPIO has knowingly furnished incorrect reply.
5. The Appellant submits that Government of India Ministry of Communications & lT issued an Office Memorandum No.1-50(11)/2011-Estt dated 14th July, 2016 regarding Guidelines for Maintenance of Record of the Service. As per para 4. Detailed guidelines regarding Service Eooks are available on Ministry of Finance website at the link:
http://cva.nic.inlhtml/book5/chaoter%204. htm (copy enclosed). On perusal of the said attachment page 2 it has been stated as Providing certified copy of Service Book. [Government of lndia decision No.(5) below GFR of 4.16. A certified copy of Service Book may be supplied on payment of a copying fee Rs.5/- to a Government servant who asks for at on quitting Government service, by retirement, discharge or resignation. True copy of the above mentioned office memorandum dated 14.7.2016 along with it's enclosure is produced herewith and marked as Annexure - A-8. The enclosure to the above Office Memorandum is published as Chapter 4 of the DDO Manual at 8 Sl.No.11 as Rule Books & Manuals on the website of Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance, Government of lndia. The FAA in it's appeal order dated 13.12.2021 issued exceeding the time limit of 45 days from the date of receipt of first appeal on 29.10.2021, has also ordered to obtain information pertaining to Query No.6 & 7 of the RTI Application from the CPIO of ESIC Headquarters Office. According to section
6 (3) of the RTI Act such transfer of application should have been made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application. Hence the perennial transfer of application is not in accordance with the spirit of providing information within the time limit prescribed. Moreover neither the CPIO nor CAPIO has stated that they have not held FR/SR with them. lt is noticed that the RTI application was already disposed of by the CPIO, ESIC Headquarters office on 3.12.2021 by it's remarks uploaded. lt is pertinent to note that the FAA has not ordered to forward the copy of RTI request on Point Nos.1,2 and 3 even though no information is available with it to forward any other authority of ESIC because he is fully aware that GFR is not a Rule Book followed as such by ESIC for it's functioning.
6. The CPIO has not confirmed whether letter issued by the Assistant Director (Finance) on29.09.2021 is on the basis of the Appellant's request for supply of certified copy of Service Book and Service Cards on his retirement vide request dated 23.7.2021. True copy of the request submitted on 23.7.2O2L for certified copy of Service book and Service Card is produced here with and marked as Annexure - A-9. True copy of letter dated 29.9.2021issued by the Assistant Director (Finance) , ESIC, Thrissur is produced here with and marked as Annexure - A-10. The CPIO has not specified the GFR Rule 257 against Point No. 1 and 8. The CPIO has also made certain presumptions as : The employee may have been given a duplicate Service Book while he was in service. He asked a certified copy of Service Book after four years of his retirement. Since he has not submitted the duplicate copy for certification, an amount of Rs.xx/- should be paid for duplicate copy as per GFR Rule 25/288(4). The FAA has admitted that there was no supply of second copy of service book to any of it's employees. Without examining the Rule position or knowingly hiding the same the CPIO as well as CAPIO has given wrong reply based on wrong presumptions made. lt is a well known fact that free supply of second copy of service book was mentioned in GFR 2005 edition as well as in GFR 2017 edition, but the same was not introduced in ESIC since GFR is not a Rule book used by it's employees. Hence neither the employee can demand nor the head of office 9 is be able to supply a second copy of the service book to working employees but certified copy of Service Book and Service Cards were issued at the request employees after their retirement, resignation or discharge by collecting copying fee prescribed and the practice continued till the date of retirement of the Appellant on 30.11.2016. The Appellant has not made any request for interpretation of Rules but the FAA has recorded his findings as :
providing interpretation is not with in the purview of CPIO and hence as the Appellate Authority, the undersigned also cannot provide any interpretation to the matters which can be interpreted by different persons in different ways, This is nothing but evading in providing information on an illegal demand raised by the Assistant Director (Finance) as if he has done interpretation of Rules per his convenience.
7. The CPIO has not provided any information against Point No.9. Though GFR is a Rule book not permitted to use as such by any officers of ESIC and even if it is permitted the quoted Rule is for replacement of lost copy supplied free of cost. Since the Appellant has not been supplied with any second copy free of cost as admitted by FAA the disclosure of information on which basis the demand for replacement cost directed to be remitted by Appellant in letter dated 29.9.2021 at Annexure - A-10 is to be provided by the CPIO. ln the preamble of the RTI Act it has been mentioned that : An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to lnformation for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, ln order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The invoking of Rule 288(4) of GFR against the Appellant is a clear abuse of power by the Assistant Director (Finance) and the FAA has justified it stating that : The Appellant may also note that it is not possible to provide a copy of Service book at Rs.5/- at present in view of the cost of duplication charges and manpower involved in providing certified copy of information. lt was the responsibility of the Appellant to obtain the 2nd copy of Service Book / Service Card while he was in active service and update the records periodically which apparently not done. The Appellant is now trying to develop ingenious methods to obtain his service records at a cost of Rs.5/- and thereby trying to circumvent the provisions of RTI which makes it mandatory for him to pay Rs.2/- per page if his service cards are duplicated and given to him. The findings of the FAA is baseless. Moreover his attempt to treat RTI Act as an instrument to fixing the cost of duplicating a copy of Record itself shows how the has disposed the appeal by it's order which is supposed to be 10 passed in a quasi judicial manner. The FAA has not disclosed how the GFR Rule 257/288 is happen to be used by the Assistant Director (Finance) when it is not found place in Rules used by ESIC employees which is the crux of information requested under the RTI Act. The CPIO as well as FAA as construed that as if the Appellant has sought the second copy of service book in accordance with GFR. The Appellant has not requested second copy of service book but certified copy of Service Book . For the above reason itself the Appellant cannot raise a demand quoting GFR for supply of second copy of Service Book while in service till 30.11.2016. Moreover the Appellant has not circumvented the provisions for certified copy of Service Book rather he has made a request in accordance with the Government of lndia's decisions below SR 198 and followed by central government offices and ESIC. The authority is not honouring the said Rules and decisions there under and trying to misguide the Appellant and also trying to circumvent the provisions of GFR to justify the abuse of power by the Assistant Director (Finance) and countering it against the Appellant as if he was at fault for not obtaining second copy of service book. lt is true that RTI Act, is a revolutionary in it's nature and spirit, irresistible and indomitable in democratic spirit signals the onward march towards Swaraj. The RTI Act or Rules there under is not just for standardizing the cost of duplicating charge of a Record basically but to provide for furnishing certain information to citizens who desire it. The RTI Act is meant to make an atmosphere of transparency of information and to contain corruption and also to hold the Government and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The father of our nation has observed that : The real Swaraj will come not by the acquisition of authority by a few but by the acquisition of capacity by all to resist authority when abused.
8. ln case the FAA is really concerned with cost of copying fee of Rs.5/- fixed by Government he should have taken up the matter with the appropriate authority or fix it at his own authority if he has got delegated powers and inform such applicants instead of circumventing GFR Rule 288(4) through his subordinate officer fusistant Director(Finance). Already Government of lndia, Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training have issued directions to implement e-service book vide O.M. No.21011/15/2010-Esn.(AL).
In response to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission dated 17.04.2023 wherein he stated as under -
11"• In reply to Q.No.1 in the original application, it was replied that the information sought is not available, which is true. GFR,2005 is applicable in ESI Corporation but the date on which it was made applicable is not available with this office. A copy of the ESIC Headquarters Circular No.2-11/12/1/2014-Afes.V1 dated 29.03.2017, which itself is clearly holding the applicability of GFR is attached. Hence, the reply provided is true to the information available with CPIO.
• As the information sought vide 0.No.2 also were not available with this office, reply was given accordingly. The Appellant himself has stated in his appeal that the supply of Second copy of Service Book to ESIC employees in Kerala is not seen commenced. In this regard, it may please be noted that the appellant himself was the Deputy Director (Administration) in this office during the period from 2012 to 2016 as well as Head of office for a short period and there is no information regarding supply/updation of second copy of service book in respect of any official during this period also. Hence. the reply provided is true to the information available with CPIO.
• Reply to Q.No.3 was provided as 'Information not available with this Office' as this Office is not in possession of such exemption orders. Hence, the reply provided is true to the information available with CPIO.
• Regarding the reply provided to Q. No. 6 and 7. it is submitted that 'No such specific information from ESIC Headquarters is available with this office'. However, the First Appellate Authority in its Order dated 13.12.2021 directed the CPIO to obtain the information from the CPIO of ESIC Headquarters. Accordingly, the Application was transferred to the CPIO of ESIC Headquarters for providing information to Q.No.6 and 7 directly to the applicant. vide this Office letter dated 16.12.2021 as per Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the reply provided is true to the information available with CPIO Regarding the replies to Q. No 8 and 9. the Letter No 54a 20 11 (184) Arcs dated 24 09 2021 was issued to the applicant in response to his letter dated 23.07 2021 Demand for payment of Rs 500/- raised as per the letter dated 24 09 2021 was as per Rule 257/288 of GFR. Information sought vide the remaining part of the Query has already been provided to the applicant in the reply dated 26 10 2021. given to his RTI application..."
Decision:
12The Commission at the outset observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the information sought for in the RTI Application is extremely unspecific/cumbersome in nature and does not even conform to the definition of information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has largely expressed his grievance and sought for information on that basis which cannot be appreciated or comprehended.
From the standpoint of the RTI Act, the Commission finds no infirmity in the initial reply provided by the CPIO to the instant RTI Application and the Commission is at a loss to comprehend the relief or the action that is being desired by the Appellant through the said appeal.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and 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 under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(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;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it washeld 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' 13 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], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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...."
(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 14 information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied Further, the issue raised by the Appellant challenging the veracity of information furnished by the CPIO is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act.
The Appellant is therefore advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future. He is further advised to pursue the grievances before the appropriate forum.
The CPIO is nonetheless directed to send a copy of his written submissions dated 17.04.2023 to the Appellant within 2 days of the receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 15