Central Information Commission
Lokesh Yadav vs Indian Coast Guard on 9 January, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/INDCG/C/2022/607494
In the matter of
Lokesh Yadav
... Complainant
VS
CPIO
Tatrakshak Mukhyalaya
Coast Guard Headquarters
National Stadium Complex
New Delhi - 110 001
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 03/12/2021 CPIO replied on : 05/01/2022 First appeal filed on : 06/01/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 25/01/2022 Complaint filed on : 06/02/2022 Date of Hearing : 09/01/2023 Date of Decision : 09/01/2023 The following were present: Complainant: Present over VC Respondent: DIG Kajal Rao CPIO, HQ-Present over intra-VC Information Sought:
The Complainant has sought the following information:
a. Whether Coast Guard has made rank structures for Enrolled Follower equivalent Navik, Uttam Navik & Pradhan Navik ranks of General duty/ Domestic branch in Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986. b. Whether Enrolled Followers are entitled to wear Uttam Navik & Pradhan Navik rank badges on grant of MACP?1
c. Has Coast Guard made promotion rules for Enrolled Follower equivalent to Uttam Navik & Pradhan Navik ranks of General duty/ Domestic branch in Coast Guard (Seniority & Promotion) Rules, 1987?
d. And other related information. Grounds for Complaint
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing: The complainant was aggrieved on account of denial of information by the CPIO and FAA. By way of instant complaint, he requested the Commission to take necessary action against the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The CPIO submitted that the information was denied as it had no relationship with public activity or interest, therefore, stood exempted under Section- 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA vide its order dated 25.01.2022 upheld the response of the CPIO.
Observations:
The Commission at the outset observed that the information sought by the complainant in his RTI application was in the nature of eliciting answers to queries/replies to hypothetical questions, redressal of grievance and contesting the actions of the respondent which are all outside the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. Reliance was placed on the definition of information under Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 which reads as:
"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 Commission reiterated the observations of The Central Information Commission in its decision Dr. D.V. Rao, Dept. of Legal Affairs Vs. CPIO, Dept. of Legal Affairs, File No. CIC/80/A/2006/000045, dated 21.04.2006, wherein it was held:
"The RTI Act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries in which the petitioner attempts to elicit answer to his queries with prefixes as why, what when and whether. The 2 petitioner's right extends only to seeking information as defined in section 2(f) either by pointing the file document, paper or record etc., or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified public authority."
Therefore, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the information sought by the complainant is ultra-vires the scope of RTI Act, 2005.
Apropos the contents of complaint, the Commission observed that the instant matter was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 where the Commission was only required to ascertain if the information has been denied with a malafide intent or due to an unreasonable cause or under any other clause of Section-18. Since records of the case do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information on the part of the CPIO, the Commission concluded that there was no cause of action which would necessitate action under the provisions of the Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
However, the Commission is of the opinion that the view taken by the CPIO and FAA in denying the information under Section-8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 was misconceived. Therefore, the Commission issues a strict warning to the CPIO and directs him to exercise due diligence while responding to RTI applications in the future. The Commission warns against the mechanical use of the exemption clauses of Sections 8 and 9 of RTI Act, 2005 without application of mind.
Decision:
In view of the fact that the information sought is not covered under Section- 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005, therefore, no further action is warranted. The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3