Central Information Commission
Anup Talwar vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 10 April, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/EPFOG/A/2022/662124
Anup Talwar .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Employee's Provident Fund
Organisation, H.O, RTI Cell,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14 BhikajiCama Place,
New Delhi - 110066. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03/04/2023
Date of Decision : 03/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23/09/2022
CPIO replied on : 07/10/2022
First appeal filed on : 07/10/2022
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22/11/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.09.2022 seeking the following information:1
"Query no 1. Can an Exempted organization refuse their employees to contribute towards Voluntary Provident Fund (VPF).
Query no 2. If yes then please provide under which law and under which section or notification."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 07.10.2022 stating as under:-
"The provisions regarding additional contributions are contained in Para 26 (6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952.
Further, as per Condition 09 enunciated in Appendix-A to Para 27AA of EPF Scheme 1952, the rate of contribution payable, the conditions and quantum of advances and other matters laid down under the provident fund rules of the establishment and the interest credited to the account of each member, calculated on the monthly running balance of the member and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower than those declared by the Central Government under the various provisions prescribed in the Act and the Scheme framed there under."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.10.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of unsatisfactory response.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Represented by Subodh, RPFC-II present through intra-video conference.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant sought for clarifications regarding voluntary contribution funds by the employees of exempted organization. In response to it, the CPIO invited the attention of the Appellant towards specific provisions of EPF Scheme, 1952(as mentioned in the averred reply).2
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to information sought by the Appellant as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon as the queries raised by the Appellant are clarificatory in nature which concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act per se. In this regard, the Appellant shall note that the 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;.."
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) Similarly,in the matter of KhanapuramGandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors[SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009],Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides: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 Actan 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....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) 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 4 information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5