Central Information Commission
Om Prakash vs Northern Railway Firozpur on 4 March, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NRALF/A/2018/143176
Om Prakash ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/o. Railways, Northern ... ितवादी/Respondent
Railway, Ferozepur, Punjab.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 03-03-2018 FA : 26-04-2018 SA:10-07-2018
CPIO : 20-04-2018 FAO : 21-05-2018 Hearing: 03-03-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, Northern Railway, Ferozepur seeking information as follows:-
"Kindly arrange to provide the following information under RTI Act, 2005 of the candidates qualified in written test for selection to the post of S&WLI in level-6PB 9300-34800 (GP 4200) against 35% LDCE Quota held in FZR division on 20/07/2017
1. Mention the detail of question paper divided in subjective & objective question marks.
2. Kindly arrange to provide the copy of my answer sheet for review.
3. Mention the detail of Hindi questions in paper.
4. Provide a copy of question paper.
5. Provide a copy of Answer Keys for evaluation of my paper."
2. The CPIO responded on 20-04-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 26-04-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 21-05- 2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO Page 1 of 5 u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Om Prakash did not attend the hearing. Mr. Prince Luthra, APO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The respondent declined to provide the aforesaid question paper and the answer sheet to the appellant without claiming any exemption. Also, they had asked the appellant to visit their office for inspection of records vide their letter dated 20-04-2018.
Decision:
5. This Commission observes that the respondent has not applied his mind while replying to the RTI application. The respondent has also not taken plea of any limited question bank, if it is so, based on which they could have denied the information. Instead, the CPIO called the appellant to their office for inspection of records. Therefore, due to want of any such plea with regards to number of questions being limited and efficacy of the LDCE quota being compromised, this Commission directs the respondent to provide the information to the appellant on point nos. 2, 4 and 5, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
6. However, the CPIO is not obliged to provide clarification to the appellant on point nos. 1 and 3 which is in the nature of seeking explanation from the CPIO. Hence, this sort of queries seeking clarification from the CPIO is not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of 'information' u/s Section 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 ........"Page 2 of 5
In this context, a reference is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497, 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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
"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."
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."
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 3 of 58. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 03-03-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
M/o. Railways,
Sr. DMM & Nodal CPIO,
Northern Railway, RTI Cell,
DRM's Office, Ferozepur Division,
Ferozepur Punjab- 152001
2. Om Prakash
Page 5 of 5