Central Information Commission
Dharmendra Kumar vs Northeast Frontier Railway (Guwahati) on 5 June, 2020
CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/160994
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/160994
In the matter of:
Dharmendra Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
O/o the Divisional Railway
Manager(C),
Rangiya,
Northeast Frontier Railway,
Dist. Kamrup,
Assam
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 12.07.2018 FA : 07.08.2018 SA : 08.10.2018
CPIO : 30.07.2018 FAO : 19.09.2018 Hearing : 02.06.2020
The following were present:
Appellant: Heard over the phone
Page 1 of 8
CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/160994
Respondent: Shri Sanjib Ghosh, Sr. DCM, O/o the Divisional Railway
Manager(C), Rangiya, Northeast Frontier Railway, Assam, heard over the phone
ORDER
Information Sought:
The appellant filed an RTI application on 12.07.2018 seeking information on four points pertaining to mutual transfer, including, inter-alia;
a) Provide photocopy of rule/letter of RNY Division, N.F railway and the copy of the Railway Board's letter vide which the Mutual Transfer Withdrawal has been done by RNY/Division on 21.06.18, after the lapse of eight months from the date of request,
b) As per South Eastern Central Railway, Estt Branch letter no. 94/2006, no request for withdrawal of Mutual Transfer will be accepted. However, the request of Shri Rakesh Kumar has been accepted. Provide copy of the rules under which the request of Rakesh Kumar has been accepted,
c) Provide reasons for acceptance of request by Rangiya Division despite clear instructions in the Proforma 'B' (Point no. XI) of SECR's letter that after submitting the application, family problem will not be accepted, etc. The CPIO, vide letter dated 30.07.2018, provided point wise reply to the appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 07.08.2018. FAA, vide order dated 19.09.2018, furnished detailed information to the appellant on point no.
2. Page 2 of 8 CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/160994 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that an appropriate reply has not been provided to him by the respondent. He further submitted that the rules provided by the respondent against point no. 1 and 2 of his RTI application are irrelevant to his mutual transfer. He further submitted that the respondent has malafidely denied him information on point nos. 3 and 4. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the respondent for malafidely withholding the information.
The respondent submitted that the appellant, vide his RTI application in question, is seeking redressal of his grievance regarding the withdrawal of his request for mutual transfer. However, RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances and there are other appropriate fora for resolving such matters. Nonetheless, an appropriate reply, as per the available records and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 30.07.2018. He further submitted that the rules pertaining to Mutual Transfer of Group C employees (the group to which the appellant belongs), as available on record, has been provided to the appellant on point nos. 1 and 2. Further, no additional rules with respect to the specific situations, as stated by the appellant, are available with the respondent. With respect to the information sought vide point nos. 3 and 4, the respondent submitted that the information sought is clarificatoy in nature, which does not fall Page 3 of 8 CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/160994 within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Thus, the appellant was informed accordingly vide the above noted letter.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that with respect to the information sought vide point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application in question, the rules, as available on record, have been provided to the appellant by the respondent vide letter dated 30.07.2018. The appellant, however, is not satisfied with the rules so provided. In this regard, the Commission finds it pivotal to cite the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 09.08.2011 in the matter of CBSE & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) wherein it was held as under:
"35......... 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..............."
Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011] has held as follows:
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public Page 4 of 8 CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/160994 authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."
Thus, from the above noted ratios, it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authoritycan be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record.
With respect to the information sought vide point nos. 3 and 4, the Commission notes that the information sought is clarificatory in nature, which is beyond the purview of the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission observes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of KhanapuramGandaiah vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. in SLP (C) 34868 of 2009 dated 04.01.2010, has held as under:
"7. ....the 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. A judge cannot be expected to give reasons other than those that have been enumerated in the judgment or order."Page 5 of 8
CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/160994 Further, in the matter of CBSE & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011); date of judgment 09.08.2011 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under:
"....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........"
At the outset it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act.
In view of the above, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 6 of 8CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/160994 Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 02.06.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Divisional Railway Manager (C), Rangiya, Northeast Frontier Railway, Dist. Kamrup, Assam - 781 365
2. The Central Public Information Officer Divisional Railway Manager (C), Rangiya,Northeast Frontier Railway, Dist. Kamrup,Assam - 781 365 Page 7 of 8 CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/160994
3. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Page 8 of 8