Central Information Commission
Dr. Sandeep Mehta vs Railway Board on 4 November, 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/RAILB/A/2018/116025
Dr. Sandeep Mehta ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/O. Railways, Railway ... ितवादी/Respondent
Board, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 01-08-2017 FA : 27-01-2018 SA : 14-03-2018
CPIO : 05-10-2017 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 01-11-2019
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, Railway Board, New Delhi seeking following information:-
"Please provide attested information from respective personnel authorities involved in payments done to me on each of five transfers in lieu of transfer allowances as mandated by Sixth Pay Commission and seconded by subsequent Railway Board orders."
2. The CPIO responded on 05-10-2017. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 27-01-2018 which was not disposed of by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information. Hearing:
3. The appellant, Dr. Sandeep Mehta did not attend the hearing. Mr. Sandeep Saxena, APO, Mr. Arvind Kumar, SSO, Mr. Khan Siraj Afgani, OS, Mr. Ravi Kumar Meena, AA and Dr. A. G. Agarwal, ACM participated in the hearing Page 1 of 5 representing the respondent in person. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The respondent submitted that the appellant is seeking interpretation to be drawn from the settlement of his claimed bills and to deduce from these documents as to which authority is involved in settlement of his bills on five occasions.
Therefore, the query raised by the appellant is not covered within the definition of information u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Decision:
5. This Commission observed that the queries raised by the appellant are in the nature of seeking clarification from the CPIO regarding settlement of his bills in respect of his transfer(s) on five occasions which requires interpretation of the settlement bills and the connected documents in order to deduce name of the authorities involved in settling of these bills. Therefore, the queries raised by the appellant are in the nature of grievance which is not covered within the definition of information u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. 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."
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 is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 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 '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 Page 2 of 5 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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
"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."
6. In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 3 of 58. 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 01-11-2019
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
M/O. Railways, DD (PG) & CPIO, Registration
& Co-Ordination, (RTI Cell), Railway Board, Room No. 5, GF, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. Dr. Sandeep Mehta Page 5 of 5