Central Information Commission
S D Trivedi vs Central Public Works Department (Er) on 25 February, 2019
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.(s):- CIC/CPWWR/A/2017/122535-BJ+
CIC/CPWER/A/2017/137678-BJ
Mr. S. D. Trivedi
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Office of the Executive Engineer
Nagpur Central Division - II,
Central Public Works Department
B. No. 15/1, Starkey Town, Sadar
Nagpur - 440001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.02.2019
Date of Decision : 25.02.2019
ORDER
RTI - I File No. CIC/CPWWR/A/2017/122535-BJ Date of RTI application 18.03.2016 CPIO's response Not on Record Date of the First Appeal 20.04.2016 First Appellate Authority's response 16.05.2016 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 04.04.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the Biometric attendance records of the whole staff of NDC-II from the date of installation of the machine in the Respondent Public Authority etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 16.05.2016, directed the APIO, NCD-II to provide complete information of Biometric Attendance records of the whole staff available in the office, to the Appellant directly, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Page 1 of 4
RTI - II File No. CIC/CPWER/A/2017/137678-BJ
Date of RTI application 29.09.2016
CPIO's response 28.10.2016/
09.02.2017
Date of the First Appeal 19.01.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 01.06.2017
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 08 points regarding his MACP on completion of 20 years of his service i.e. from 2011, why his MACP was not done/cleared till date; salary deducted by the Respondent Public Authority from October, 2015 till September, 2016 and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 28.10.2016, requested the Applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 460/- for furnishing the desired information. Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 09.02.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. S. D. Trivedi through VC;
Respondent: Mr. L. L. Meshram, CPIO / AE and Mr. R. M. Gupta, EE through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought by him had initially not been provided but subsequently, he received the information held on record. The Respondent explained that as far as attendance record was concerned, the biometric data was not readily available and therefore the manual records were provided. Due to technical faults, the biometric system had not been functioning well and therefore the manual attendance records were furnished. With regard to his personal grievance regarding MACP etc., the Appellant expressed his satisfaction over the receipt of the reply. It was also noted that the Appellant was working in the Office of Chief Engineer and did not ever complain to his higher authorities about his grievance.
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."Page 2 of 4
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:
"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, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.Page 3 of 4
The Appeals stand 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: 25.02.2019
Page 4 of 4