Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Central Information Commission

Shri Yogesh vs Department Of Trade & Taxes, Gnctd on 16 March, 2009

                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              .....

                                                       F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01456
                                                       Dated, the 16th March, 2009.

 Appellant      : Shri Yogesh

 Respondents : Department of Trade & Taxes, GNCTD

This second-appeal came up for hearing on 05.03.2009. Both parties were present.

2. Appellant's RTI-application dated 17.04.2008 presents a long list comprising requests which are more in the nature of seeking the respondent- public authority's explanations, opinions and reasons, which takes these queries well beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Appellant seems to believe that the words "opinions" and "advices" occurring in that Section, entitle him to obtain a respondent's advice in a matter of interest to him in the subject dealt with by the respondents. As has been explained by the Commission in its decision dated 18.12.2006 in Aakash Aggarwal Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal; Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00446, the two words "opinions" and "advices" in Section 2(f) refer to opinions and advices as may be contained in the records of a public authority and cannot be construed to imply a petitioner's entitlement to refer a matter to a public authority for its advice or its opinion. Public Authorities are not there to act as petitioners' consultants in matters in their purview. Section 2(f) casts no such obligation on the public authority/CPIO. It is further seen that the queries in the RTI-petition paint hypothetical scenarios to which CPIO was asked to furnish his response. RTI Act provides no scope for such enquiries.

3. CPIO has nevertheless provided to the appellant the relevant statutory provisions and the instructions germane to the appellant's several queries. This satisfies the requirement of disclosure. A copy of the appellant's RTI-application is enclosed to this order.

4. Appeal disallowed.

5. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.

( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-16032009-05.doc Page 1 of 1