Central Information Commission
N. K. Handa vs Ifci Limited (Ifci) on 11 February, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/IFCIL/A/2019/152902
Mr. N K Handa ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
IFCI Limited
IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru
Place, New Delhi-110019
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 09-05-2019 FA : 29-07-2019 SA : 01-11-2019
CPIO : 10-06-2019 FAO : 09-08-2019 Hearing: 31-01-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) IFCI Limited, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
(i) All the Noting Files, including the noting files relating to NHRC Case No. 3384/ 30/0/2016 from beginning till date.
(ii) All the correspondence Files, including file relating to NHRC Case No. 3384/30/0/2016 from beginning till date. Etc.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 10.06.2019 has denied the requested information under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. Being dissatisfied with the same, Page 1 of 7 the appellant has filed first appeal dated 29.07.2019 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide its order dated 09.08.2019 upheld CPIO's reply and disposed of the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Malik, CPIO/AGM along with Shri Subhash, RTI Consultant attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. Both the parties submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 09.05.2019.
That the information sought has wrongly been denied under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. Therefore, the requested information should be furnished by the respondent.
6. Shri Malik submitted that vide their letter dated 10.06.2019, they have already provided relevant reply to the appellant as per their available records. That the information related to the NHRC Files cannot be provided as the same is pending for adjudication before the said forum. In this regard, he has referred one judgment of the Commission titled as "Milap Choraria vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes Department of Revenue Minsitry of Finance"
(CIC/AT/C/2008/00025) wherein the inspection of the relevant files was declined.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information related to introduction of pension scheme for the employees of IFCI and other Page 2 of 7 queries related thereto. That the queries of the appellant are general, wide and non-specific as all the file notings, correspondences related to the NHRC case are being sought from the respondent without specifying the particular file no., subject, document number etc. That the appellant has expected that the CPIO firstly should make a research and analyze the documents and then provide information to the appellant. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
8. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 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."
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making 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 Page 3 of 7 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:
"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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:
Page 4 of 7"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."
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."
9. That the respondent has contended that whatever information they had in their records has already been shown to the appellant and the appellant has inspected all the relevant files relating to the pension scheme. Since, the guard files are the policy files only, therefore the relevant reply has already been provided to the appellant. That the FAA has further confirmed that only these files are available in the records of the public authority. That as far as information relating to NHRC case is concerned, the relevant files related to the complaints filed by the appellant is pending adjudication before the NHRC, therefore the said information has been denied by the respondent. That in this regard, the respondent during the course of his submission has referred one decision of the Commission titled as "Milap Choraria vs. Central Board of Page 5 of 7 Direct Taxes Department of Revenue Minsitry of Finance"
(CIC/AT/C/2008/00025). The Commission has gone through the said case carefully and observes that since the personal interest of the RTI Applicant as against the larger public interest was involved in the matter, the inspection of the files was declined in the said case. Hence, the judgment referred by the respondent has relevance in the present case. Therefore, the inspection of the relevant documents related to NHRC case has rightly been denied by the respondent.
10. Moreover, the appellant has contended that there are documents which show as to why the said scheme is introduced. However, the respondent has contended that few documents have been shown to the appellant but there was no file noting.
11. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no detailed noting/files and the FAA has categorically confirmed that there is no other file to be shown related to the queries of the appellant. Now the issue is that if there is any other policy file to this effect, the inspection of the same should be permitted to the appellant as it has bearing on the interest of all the employees. The another issue is if there is any other file/ policy in this regard, as such policy has been introduced for all the employees in larger public interests, the CPIO is directed to look into their records again and if available, the opportunity of inspection of the relevant documents should be provided to the appellant and the relevant records related to his query should be shown to him on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and in writing. The respondent is further directed to provide copy of the relevant documents as on the date of instant RTI Application to the appellant on payment of requisite fee as prescribed under the provisions of RTI Rules, 2012. That the document consisting personal information of a third party should not be provided to the appellant.
12. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 6 of 713. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 31-01-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस#यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
IFCI Limited
IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru
Place, New Delhi-110019
2. N K Handa
Page 7 of 7