Central Information Commission
Chandranshu Mehta vs Union Public Service Commission on 22 April, 2019
Chandranshu Mehta vs. DoPT & Ors.
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos. : CIC/DOP&T/A/2017/175749/SD +
CIC/DOP&T/A/2017/178207/SD +
CIC/SSCOM/A/2017/178208/SD +
CIC/UPSCM/A/2017/178211/SD +
CIC/CADMT/A/2017/175751/SD
Chandranshu Mehta ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Dy. Director,
Institute of Secretariat Training
and Management,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Administrative Block, JNU Campus (Old),
Olof Palme Marg,
New Delhi - 110067.
CPIO,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block,
New Delhi - 110001
CPIO,
Staff Selection Commission
Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003
1
Chandranshu Mehta vs. DoPT & Ors.
CPIO,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi - 110069
CPIO
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
61/35, Copernicus Marg
New Delhi-110001 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
RTI application filed on : 23/09/2017
CPIO replied on : 26/09/2017; 03/10/2017; 26/09/2017
First appeal filed on : 03/10/2017 & 05/10/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 26/10/2017 & 07/11/2017
Second Appeal dated : 03/11/2017; 16/11/2017
Date of Hearing : 18/04/2019
Date of Decision : 18/04/2019
Note: The above referred Appeals have been clubbed for decision as the same
information has been sought through separate RTI Applications from different
public authorities.
Information sought:
The Appellant sought to know if after one year of selection of an individual in service, a Writ Petition is filed challenging said selection and during the pendency of the Writ Petition, if the period of probation of the averred individual is complete, will he/she be confirmed to the post or not?
Grounds for the Second Appeal(s):
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.2
Chandranshu Mehta vs. DoPT & Ors.
Respondent No. 1: H.Govind, Sr. PPS & Ex-CPIO, R.K. Jha, AD & CPIO, Vadali Rambabu, JD & FAA and K. Govindarajulu, JD, Institute of Secretariat Training and Management, Department of Personnel & Training ,New Delhi present in person.
Respondent No.2: Satish Kumar, US & CPIO and S.N. Jha, US & CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi present in person.
Respondent No.3: Rep. by DoPT.
Respondent No.4: S.K. Mann, US & CPIO, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi and Satish Kumar, US & CPIO, S.N. Jha, US & CPIO, DoPT, New Delhi present in person.
Respondent No.5: Presence dispensed with since it has been arrayed as a party only during the hearing. (It was gathered from records of the registry attached with this bench that similar case is pending against CPIO, CAT, New Delhi) Commission remarked upon perusal of facts on record that while Respondent No.1, 2 & 5 provided appropriate reply on the RTI Application, Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 transferred the RTI Application to Respondent No.2 under Section 6(3) of RTI Act. Commission further observed that there was no scope of intervention in the matter as the Appellant has sought for interpretation and opinion of the CPIO(s) which is not as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act, yet Respondent No.2 has provided adequate clarification.
Appellant objected to the observations of the Commission and relied on a decision of a coordinate bench in File No.CIC/CC/A/2014/001770-SA in the matter of Ram Kishan Sharma vs. PIO, UGC wherein the following was held:
"7.... Information in the form of 'clarification' also liberates the appellants under RTI Act from certain doubts."
XXX "12. The RTI Act has provided a tool to the people to find out such clarifications. Instead of physically approaching or telephonically asking the applicant has paid Rs.10/- in the form of RTI fee, creating an obligation on the public authority to respond. Hence, the Commission directs the respondent 3 Chandranshu Mehta vs. DoPT & Ors.
authority not to refuse to give clarifications. If not, the commission would be compelled to initiate penal proceedings and also direct the public authority to pay compensation to the appellants in similar circumstances because appellant's RTI request was a necessity arising out of non-performance of its duty under section 4(1)(c) & (d) of RTI Act."
Further, Appellant also relied on a decision of the said coordinate bench in File No. CIC/MCULT/A/2017/172983 as it was based on the same RTI Application as the one under reference, filed by him with the Ministry of Culture. Appellant pointed out that there ought to be congruence in the view taken by this bench and the coordinate bench as disclosure has been ordered in the same case previously. Appellant also made a reference to the definition of "information" given in Section 2(f) of RTI Act, as reproduced in Para 11 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors (Civil Appeal No.6454 OF 2011) .
Decision At the outset, Commission notes that the decision of the coordinate bench in Ram Kishan Sharma vs. PIO, UGC (supra) was based in the context of the concerned public authority's failure to comply with the provisions of Section 4(1)(c) and (d) of RTI Act, assessed on the basis of the nature of information sought.
In the instant case, information sought by the Appellant is typically hypothetical in nature, based on mere conjecture and not facts. Section 4(1)(c) and (d) of RTI Act clearly did not envisage hypothetical cases in its ambit. While placing reliance on precedents, Appellant shall take note of the following obiter dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Major Bahadur Singh (2006 (1) SCC 368):
"Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper."
Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors held as under:
4Chandranshu Mehta vs. DoPT & Ors.
"31. The effect of the provisions and scheme of the RTI Act is to divide `information' into the three categories. They are:
(i) Information which promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, disclosure of which may also help in containing or discouraging corruption (enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act).
(ii) Other information held by public authority (that is all information other than those falling under clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act).
(iii) Information which is not held by or under the control of any public authority and which cannot be accessed by a public authority under any law for the time being in force.
Information under the third category does not fall within the scope of RTI Act. Section 3 of RTI Act gives every citizen, the right to `information' held by or under the control of a public authority, which falls either under the first or second category. In regard to the information falling under the first category, there is also a special responsibility upon public authorities to suo moto publish and disseminate such information so that they will be easily and readily accessible to the public without any need to access them by having recourse to section 6 of RTI Act. There is no such obligation to publish and disseminate the other information which falls under the second category..."
Now, when we read the observations of the coordinate bench in Ram Kishan Sharma vs. PIO, UGC in conjunction with the aforesaid categorization of "information" as envisaged under RTI Act, it is apparent that the information sought in the instant RTI Application does not fall in either of the first two categories, nor is the third category applicable here since the question is hypothetical. Even further, the import of what constitutes "information" under Section 4(1)(c) and (d) of RTI Act is to be assessed on a case to case basis depending on the role and functions of respective public authorities.
Adverting to the reliance placed by the Appellant on the decision of the coordinate bench in File No. CIC/MCULT/A/2017/172983, which is based on the same RTI Application, this bench of the Commission is not in a position to concur or differ with the same as it is a non-speaking order.
5Chandranshu Mehta vs. DoPT & Ors.
However, this bench finds it imperative to reflect on the following perspective added by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors to the scope and ambit of "information" as understood under RTI Act:
"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. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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) It is thus clear beyond reasonable doubt that the information sought in the RTI Application under reference is outside the purview of Section 2(f) of RTI Act and Appellant's insistence on the interpretation of Section 2(f) of RTI Act to include within its ambit clarification on hypothetical questions is devoid of any merit. Besides, outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of RTI Act to include deductions; 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 of RTI Act. Moreover, there can only be subjective responses to such hypothetical questions, therefore ascribing a mandate of normative standard of replying on RTI Applications of similar nature merely because the applicant believes that the CPIO should be in a position to provide clarifications is preposterous. In this regard, we may also look at the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject 6 Chandranshu Mehta vs. DoPT & Ors.
of interpretation of statutes in the matter of Gurudevdatta VKSS Maryadit & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 2298 of 2001) in the following words:
"Further we wish to clarify that it is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences...."
In view of the foregoing discussion, Commission is not inclined to accept the contentions of the Appellant and orders no relief in the matter.
The appeal(s) are dismissed.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by User
Date: 2019.04.22 13:37:49 IST
7