Central Information Commission
Ganesh Ramteke vs Nhpc Ltd. on 29 September, 2022
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/NHPCL/A/2022/121356
Ganesh Ramteke ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
NHDC Limited, RTI Cell,
NHDC Parisar, Near Hotel
Lake View Ashoka, Shyamla Hills,
Bhopal-462013, Madhya Pradesh .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/09/2022
Date of Decision : 27/09/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10/01/2022
CPIO replied on : 11/02/2022
First appeal filed on : 28/02/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 21/03/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30/04/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.01.2022 seeking the following information:1 2 3 4
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 11.02.2022 stating as follows:-
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.02.2022. FAA's order dated 28.03.2022 held as under:-
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.5
Respondent: Shashank Shukla, CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of his RTI Application stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that despite visiting the office of the Respondent for inspection, original records for information sought were not shown to him.
In rebuttal to Appellant's contentions, the CPIO submitted that although the original records of information sought for have been weeded out as per the record retention policy ; however, in response to another case, since the photocopies of the records happened to be available with them; therefore, accordingly inspection of the same was offered to the Appellant with a bonafide approach . As regards points no. 1- 3 & 8-9 of RTI Application, he further submitted that the information has already been provided to the Appellant while against points no. 4 & 5 , no specific information per se has been sought by him except allegations against the concerned CPIO/officers. He further added that for information against points no. 6 & 7, since a CBI case on this subject matter was pending adjudication; thus information was not shared with the Appellant. In response to points no. 10-11 of RTI Application, the CPIO explained that no such records are available with them.
The Appellant interjected to contest the fact that a copy of the attendance register in response to point no. 3 should have been provided to him as he was also one of the employees covered in that attendance register. In this regard, the CPIO clarified that the staff is recruited through an 'outsourcing mechanism' and the attendance records of which are not maintained by their office.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of the instant RTI Application that the information sought by the Appellant is unspecific and indeterminate which concededly does not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act and also the fact remains that it also contains the elements of personal information of third parties which is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. In this regard, 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.
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 6 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 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], Hon'ble Supreme Court held 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....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 7 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 authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Further, as regards the applicability of exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act is concerned, attention of the Appellant is invited towards a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein while explaining the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, 8 disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
(Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as it was in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act, leaving behind no scope of further relief to be add on in the matter.
However, in the spirit of RTI Act, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence and always quote relevant exemption clause of Section 8/9 of RTI Act while denying any information in response to RTI Applications in future.
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 / 9