Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Syed Azmatullah vs Ministry Of Railways on 11 February, 2026

                                के ीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067

File No: CIC/MORLY/A/2024/627489

Syed Azmatullah                                         .....अपीलकता/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम
C.P.I.O,
Integral Coach Factory
O/o the Principal Chief Personnel Officer
Chennai - 600 038                                        .... ितवादी/Respondent

Date of Hearing                     :    11-02-2026
Date of Decision                    :    11-02-2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :               Swagat Das

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          : 24-05-2024
CPIO replied on                   : 31-05-2024
First appeal filed on             : 02-06-2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 20-06-2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        : 26-06-2024

Information sought

:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24-05-2024 seeking the following information:

"1. Who is the Appointing Authority for Deputy Chief Chemist and Metallurgist (Dy CC&M) at Integral Coach Factory (ICF), Chennai- 600038?

2. From when the post of Dy CC&M/ICF is vacant?

3. Who is looking after the functions of Dy CC&M/ICF and is he eligible or suitable for the post of Dy CC&M as per norms?

4. Is there any action taken by the Appointing Authority to fill the post of Dy CC&M and if so the expected date of filling up the post?"

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 31-05-2024 stating as under:

"Query No.1: Dy.CC&M Post at ICF is being filled by Cadre Controlling Authority viz., South Central Railway.

Query No.2: 26.03.2021 Query No.3: Functions of Dy.CC&M/ICF post is looking after by a same grade officer.

Query No.4: Filling up the post of Dy.CC&M/ICF comes under the Cadre Controlling Authority viz., South Central Railway."

3. The Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02-06-2024. The F.A.A upheld the reply of C.P.I.O vide order dated 20-06-2024 with the following observations:

"In your appeal, you have indicated that incomplete and misleading information has been provided by PIO in respect of Query Nos 3 and 4. On examination of your Query No.3 and the reply given by the PIO, I do not find any misleading information given by PIO. Regarding the first part of your Query No.3, the reply given was the function of Dy.CC & M post looking after by a same grade officer, To be precise, since the post is vacant, one of the Dy CME has been entrusted with the responsibility of looking after the duties of Dy. CC & M. With regard to your later part of your Query No.3, you have not asked any information here. Rather, you are seeking clarification. RTI Act, 2005 do not provide to give clarifications. Please Note.

With regard to your Query No.4, yes, this organization has already taken action by nominating one of the Dy.CME's to look after the duties of Dy. CC & M. With regard to the expected date of filling up the post, you are asking for a future course of action. RTI Act, 2005 do not provide for giving speculative answers.

Therefore the Appeal stands disposed accordingly."

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Shri M Radhakrishnan, Deputy Chief Personnel Officer & PIO present through Video-Conference.

5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 26.06.2024 is not available on record. Respondent confirms non-service.

6. Written submissions of the Appellant and Respondent are taken on record.

7. Upon being queried by the Commission w.r.t point Nos. 3 and 4 of the RTI application, the Respondent submitted that vide their letters dated 31.05.2024 and 20.06.2024, they have provided complete point-wise reply/information to the Appellant as per the documents available on record. The Respondent stated that information sought on point Nos. 3 and 4 of the RTI application is more in the nature of seeking clarification/explanation of the PIO.

Decision:

8. The Commission at the outset after scrutinizing the records finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to information sought on point Nos. 3 and 4 of RTI application as the queries raised by the Appellant is based on conjectures which concededly does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act per se.

9. In this regard, the Appellant 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:

"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;.."

10. His attention is also 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 was held 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)

11. 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)

12. 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)

13. In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the PIO during the hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act.

14. No intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

Swagat Das ( ागत दास) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Archana Srivastva) Dy. Registrar 011 - 2610 7040 Date CIC/MORLY/A/2024/627489 Page 5 of 6 Copy To:

The First Appellate Authority, Integral Coach Factory, O/o the Pr. Chief Personnel Officer, Chennai - 600 038 Syed Azmatullah CIC/MORLY/A/2024/627489 Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)