Central Information Commission
Baidyanath Sen vs Department Of Posts on 6 September, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायतसंख्या/Complaint No.: CIC/POSTS/C/2021/633662
Baidyanath Sen ...शिकायतकताा/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Assistant Director of Postal Services-(Staff),
Office of the Chief Postmaster General,
Department of Posts-India, Jammu & Kashmir Circle,
Jammu-180012 (J&K).
...प्रशतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from Complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.09.2020
CPIO replied on : 17.09.2020
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Complaint received at CIC : 02.08.2021
Date of Hearing : 06.09.2022
Date of Decision : 06.09.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Complainant sought following information:Page 1 of 4
• CPIO reply dated 17.09.2020 :
Grounds for Complaint The PIO has not provided information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Complainant: Present on phone and requested the Commission to decide his case on merits as he is out of station.
Respondent: Mr. Shahnawaz Khan, APMG & CPIO, present in person.
Upon Commissions instance, PIO submitted that relevant information has already been provided to the Appellant on 17.09.2020 and further, information sought by the Appellant is not available in the record and same was categorically informed to him.
Decision Commission based on the nature of relief sought in the present matter and prayer of the Complainant during hearing treats the instant matter as a Second Appeal.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appellant has sought information in a specific format Page 2 of 4 and under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, 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. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which states:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, ad vices, 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."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 (CBSE &Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.) had held that:
"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. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. 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. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions..." Thus a combined reading of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 with the above decision clearly indicates that 'information' as defined in the section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the public authority. Applying the same logic to the instant case, it is imperative that the respondent is obliged to furnish information as held by them and not in any particular format as desired by the information seeker. Thus, the appellant cannot expect the respondent to take certain action or initiate action as desired by him. In view of the foregoing, Commission deems it expedient to highlight that 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 under:
Page 3 of 4"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 authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."
Further, 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) has 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..............."
In view of the above, the Commission notes 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.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया)
Information Commissioner (सच ु )
ू ना आयक्त
Authenticated true copy
(अनिप्रमानितसत्यानितप्रनत)
Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाि ग्रोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 4 of 4