Central Information Commission
A. K. Malik vs Delhi Fire Services on 27 May, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/DLFSR/A/2021/605050
A. K. Malik .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Office of the Director, Delhi Fire Service-HQ
(Government of NCT of Delhi),
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
2. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Administration/RTI Branch, Delhi Fire
Service-HQ (Government of NCT of Delhi),
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.12.2020
CPIO replied on : 11.12.2020
First appeal filed on : 30.12.2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Second Appeal received at CIC : 17.02.2021
Date of Hearing : 27.05.2022
Date of Decision : 27.05.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information:
Etc. • PIO, DFS-HQ, furnished reply, vide letter dated 11.12.2020, as under:Page 2 of 6
• Written submissions have been received from PIO, DFS-HQ, vide letter dated 23.05.2022, as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 3 of 6
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present.
Respondent: Mr. Mukesh Verma, PIO, DFS, present.
Appellant stated that relevant information, with regards to instant RTI Application, has not been furnished to him in the instant matter. He further requested the Commission that complete information be furnished to him.
PIO submitted that information, as available with the concerned department, has been furnished to the Appellant. He further submitted that information requested by the Appellant does not exist on record and same was intimated to Appellant. He further submitted that he would abide by the orders of Commission, if any.
Decision:
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 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"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), 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 Page 4 of 6 '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."
Commission also takes into account the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) as under:
6. " .. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
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.
Therefore, in lieu of afore-mentioned observations, Commission observes that appropriate reply has already been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned PIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Page 5 of 6 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 6 of 6