Central Information Commission
Haribol Barik vs Iiser Berhampur on 17 November, 2021
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/IISBP/A/2020/678948
Haribol Barik ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
IISER Berhampur, RTI Cell, ITI
Premises Engineering School
Road, NH-59, Berhampur,
Ganjam, Odisha- 760010 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16/11/2021
Date of Decision : 16/11/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25/04/2020
CPIO replied on : 25/05/2020
First appeal filed on : 05/06/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 25.04.2020 seeking the following information;
1. Is there any sexual harassment case imposed upon the current Deputy Registrar (Mr.S.Venkateswaran) in the internal complaint committee of IISER, Berhampur If Yes, Kindly provide the copy the Report by Internal Complaint Committee.
2. What are the charges that is imposed upon Mr.S.Venkateswaran under this case Please provide details.
3. What action has been taken by the Director of IISER, Berhampur on Deputy Registrar based on the committee report
4. What are the safety measures taken by the organization for female employees in the organization after this incident
5. Is there any committee exist in IISER, Berhampur for issues of employees related to working environment The CPIO replied to the appellant on 25.05.2020 stating as follows:-
"As per CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (CIC) judgement, vide File No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 dated April 21, 2006 "The RTI Act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries and to the questions with prefixes such as why, what when and whether "
The applicant's right extends only to seeking information as defined in the section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 either by pinpointing the file or by mentioning the type of information available with the specified public authority.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.06.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of material information from the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present. (Remained unavailable for audio-conference hearing) 2 Respondent: Korada Manjunath, Assistant Registrar & APIO present through audio-conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the notice of hearing issued to the Appellant has been received back undelivered with the postal remarks "addressee left". For the said reasons, due efforts were also made to contact the Appellant telephonically, however his mobile number available on record apparently belongs to some other person. Further, in the absence of alternate corresponding address of the Appellant, the Commission is not in a position to send any further intimation of hearing and deems it fit to decide the case on merits based on the strength of material on record.
During the hearing, the APIO reiterated the contents of his reply.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information as sought for in the RTI Application as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon as the queries raised by the Appellant firstly do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and also pertains to personal information of third party which is squarely hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The Appellant has sought for clarifications and deductions to be provided based on a speculative query and to that extent the PIO has informed the Appellant accordingly which is in consonance with the provisions 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.
In this regard, his attention is also 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 3 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 Having observed as above, no further relief is pertinent in the matter.
However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue this matter through administrative mechanism.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4