Central Information Commission
Dinesh Babu A. vs Western Railway Mumbai on 5 December, 2019
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/WRAIL/A/2018/122745
Dinesh Babu A. ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/O. Railways, Western ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Railway, Ahmedabad.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 03-10-2017 FA : 27-11-2017 SA: 11-04-2018
CPIO : 09-11-2017 FAO : Not on Record Hearing: 04-12-2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, Western Railway, Ahmadabad seeking following information on 11 points:-
"1. List of present officers and union officials in joint meeting held on 25-05-2017 in store workshop Sabarmati.
2. Copy of rule according to which rule of Railway Board in store workshop Sabarmati on same vehicle two drivers allotted work in same timings.Page 1 of 4
3. List of work done by drivers individually from 01-04-2017 to 30-09-2017"
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information within a period of 30 days, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 27-11-2017 requesting that now the information should be provided to him. As the first appellate authority did not give him any reply, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on this ground and requested the Commission to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act. Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Dinesh Babu A. attended the hearing through video conferencing. Mr. N. Solanki, APO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing.
4. The appellant stated that the respondent should be directed to provide the sought for information on point nos.4, 5 and 6 of the RTI application.
5. The respondent informed the Commission that they have already furnished the reply to the appellant vide their letter dated 09.11.2017.The respondent further submitted that appellant has sought clarification on point nos. 4,5 and 6 of the RTI application which CPIO is not obliged to answer under RTI Act. Decision:
6. The Commission after considering submissions of both the parties and perusal of records observes that the information sought on point nos.4, 5 and 6 in the RTI application are clarificatory in nature and the CPIO is not bound to give reasons/clarification under the RTI Act in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497. 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 Page 2 of 4 '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."
7. In view of above, Commission is of opinion that only factual information could be provided to the appellant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in this matter.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा) Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक / Date 04-12-2019 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, M/O. Railways, AMM (G-II) & Nodal PIO, Western Railway, O/o. The Assistant Materials Manager, General Stores Depot, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad-380019, Gujarat.
2. Mr. Dinesh Babu A. Page 4 of 4