Central Information Commission
Kashyap Mansukhlal Vyas vs National Legal Services Authority on 17 January, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NLSAT/C/2021/644113
Kashyap Mansukhlal Vyas ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Legal Services Authority,
RTI Cell, 12/11, Jam Nagar House,
New Delhi - 110011. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05/01/2023
Date of Decision : 13/01/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : Nil
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08/08/2021
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated Nil seeking the following information:
"1.I would most respectfully submit application to know SUO MOTU action taken on Large Numbers of Public Importance Matters (PIL Grievances), which cover Larger Public Interest of 95 LAKH Pune Citizens, being Submitted by me for last more than 24 MONTHS for suo motu cognizance To NALSA? If SUO MOTU 1 Action not taken , then please inform me about Legitimate reasons With Constitutional Rationale for the Same , After taking into consideration " LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST OF 95 LAKH PUNE CITIZENS " VIS A VIS "SOCIAL ACTION LITIGATION".
xxx
2. I Most Respectfully want only True , Legitimate And Transparent Information with regard to Following Crucial points? How Following points, Complaints are not Covered by "PIL Guidelines " vis a vis " SOCIAL ACTION LITIGATION".
xxx
3. I Would like to know whether Genuine Legal Aid with ONLY ...AND ONLY ...... Professional And Experienced Advocates Shall be available to me for initiating Public Interest Criminal proceedings ( In Transparent And Stringent manner ) Against The Builder And All Respondents Public Servants , Who are responsible for Creating " PUBLIC NUISANCE " to discriminate against 95 LAKH PUNE CITIZENS ? xxx.."
The Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint stating inter alia as under:
"(1) I Hereby mention that this Complaint is being submitted Under Section 18 (1) of RTI Act . I have been given incomplete, misleading or false information by Learned FAA . I Request And Appeal the Learned Chief Information Commission to please conduct an Appropriate inquiry and impose Appropriate penalty on PIO And recommend disciplinary action against PIO, for the reasons as enumerated under Sec-20.
(2) I am Submitting this complaint on the ground that information concerning life or liberty was not given within 48 hours as per proviso to Section 7 (1), I have provided Justifications And reasons for considering the information requested as concerning the life or liberty of Myself And Two Housewives of my Family .
xxx (4) FURTHER MY COMPLAINT IS COVERING LARGER PUBLIC INTEREST OF 95 LAKH PUNE CITIZENS VIS A VIS ABOUT 4000 RESIDENTS OF MY TWO HOUSING SOCIETIES LOCATED AT PUNE , MAHARASHTRA AS EXPLAINED IN MY COMPLAINT APPLICATION .
2Unfortunately Learned CPIO And FAA of NALSA do not wish to take Cognizance of Prime Objective " SOCIAL ACTION LITIGATION " Which is very clearly Shown at NALSA Website for Administration of " PUBLIC JUSTICE " .
I am indeed depressed to receive Grossly elusive reply as One Public Spirited Citizen "WHO" is Searching for Bright Sunlight for my Countrymen at least before my departure from this Materialistic World .
I Most Respectfully State that The Replies received from Learned CPIO AND FAA are Imperfect , Evasive , False And Incomplete .
Further I Most Politely state that there is no Transparency in Reply provided by The Learned FAA AND CPIO to One Dedicated Senior Citizen -Whistleblower fighting for Public Justice since more than 15 Years from Pune And Mumbai."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.
Respondent: Meena, CPIO present through intra-video conference.
Decision The Commission has perused the written submissions of the Complainant filed on 21.12.2022 as well as the facts on record and it is observed that the Complainant has no case to premise under the RTI Act. The Complainant has neither sought for any information as per 2(f) of the RTI Act nor has he referred to any relief that is permissible under the RTI Act. The gamut of documents and contents placed on record are incoherent and incomprehensible to a large extent, a sense of which can be gathered from the contents of his RTI Application as well as the grounds of complaint mentioned above.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Complainant 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. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
3"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(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;.."
In this regard, the Complainant's attention is 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 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], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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 why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) 4 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 Similarly, the Complainant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:5
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) The Complainant is therefore advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future. He is further advised to pursue the grievances before the appropriate forum.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 6