Central Information Commission
Bhawani Prajapati vs Prasar Bharati Secretariat on 27 April, 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/PBSEC/A/2022/640644
Bhawani Prajapati ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Prasar Bharti Secretariat,
RTI Cell, Prasar Bharti House,
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi - 110001. .... ि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 : 22/05/2022
CPIO replied on : 17/06/2022
First appeal filed on : 23/06/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 30/06/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25/07/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. That the certified copy of the manual/guideline issued for conducting physical verification of tape library in Doordarshan centers operating all over India under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting should be provided.1
2. That under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, provide certified copy of the rules/orders issued in relation to hand-over and take-over to employees without physical verification of tape libraries in Doordarshan centers operating all over India.
3. That under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, provide a certified copy of the manual / guideline made regarding the technical qualification of the appointed employee for handing over the charge of tape library in Doordarshan Kendras."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 17.06.2022 stating as under:
"Point No.1: Relevant extracts of Vol I(01 page) & Vol II (06 pages) of Doordarshan Manual First Edition January 1987 are attached.
Points 2 & 3: Information not available."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.06.2022. FAA's order dated 30.06.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: D P Singh, CPIO along with Ashesh Kumar, CAPIO present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO submitted that - "On receipt of the instant CIC hearing notice, the matter was examined again and it is intimated that the available information based on the inputs received from the concerned DPIO was already provided to the applicant on Para 1) of his RTI Application. As regards, Para 2) & Para 3) it is to submit that the appellant is seeking copies of vague & non-specific hypothetical orders (copy of the rule/orders issued in relation to hand-over and take over to employees without physical verification of tape libraries in Doordarshan AND certified copy of the manual/guideline made regarding the technical qualification of the appointed employee for handing over the charge of tape library in 2 Doordarshan Kendras). Any such order was not available in Doordarshan Directorate and the applicant was informed accordingly that no such information was available against Para 2) & Para 3) of his RTI Application. The FAA had also disposed off his appeal on the above ground. It is therefore to again submit that the available information in Doordarshan Directorate was provided to the applicant in accordance with the RTI Act 2005 and there is nothing more which can be shared with the appellant."
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant has largely sought for clarifications and justification based on conjecture and the same does not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of 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 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 3 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 information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating 4 authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied Having observed as above, no action is warranted in the matter.
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 / 5