Central Information Commission
V Anjaneyulu vs Medical Council Of India on 30 January, 2020
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/MEDCI/A/2018/145829-BJ
Mr. V Anjaneyulu
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Medical Council of India,
Pocket - 14, Sector - 8,
Dwarka Phase - 1, New Delhi - 110077
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.01.2020
Date of Decision : 30.01.2020
Date of RTI application 23.03.2018
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 18.05.2018
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 20.07.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points with regard to the number of colleges of physicians and surgeons enrolled with the Council during 2008-09; admission certificate, TC and Attendance Certificate of Dr Rojaettam, etc. Dissatisfied due to non receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. V Anjaneyulu through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Shikhar Ranjan, Law Officer and Mr. Bijender Singh, SO & PIO;Page 1 of 3
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that no information was received by him, till date. While acknowledging the receipt of the forwarding letter of the written submission dated 23.01.2020, the Appellant submitted that contrary to the claim of the Respondent, no enclosures were sent along with the said letter. In its reply, the Respondent stated that the RTI application / First Appeal were replied vide letters dated 25.04.2018 and 27.06.2018 respectively which were received back undelivered due to incomplete address.
Furthermore, on receipt of the notice of hearing from the Commission they had forwarded another set of documents with necessary enclosures to the Appellant by post on the address mentioned in the RTI application and that they were willing to send another copy of the same to him by Speed Post / e-mail if so directed by the Commission. During the hearing, the Appellant confirmed his e-mail address ([email protected]) for further necessary action.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 23.01.2020 wherein it was stated that the RTI application/ First Appeal was replied vide letters dated 25.04.2018 and 27.06.2018 respectively. Furthermore, in compliance with the order of the FAA to the PIO, Registration Section of the Council to furnish the reply in 30 days had inadvertently been missed out. However, a list of Doctors possessing medical qualifications by CPS Bombay enrolled/ registered with the MCI during the year 2008-2009 had been enclosed with the submission.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), 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 '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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:Page 2 of 3
"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. "....the 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."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission instructs the Respondent to send another set of documents provided in reference to the RTI application to the Appellant by Speed Post / e-mail within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) (K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 30.01.2020 Page 3 of 3