Central Information Commission
Mr.Ram Bahadur Rai vs Ministry Of Railways on 20 September, 2010
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2009/001239
CIC/AD/C/2009/001279
Dated September 20, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri Ram Bahadur Rai
Name of the Public Authority : RCF, Kapurthala
Background
CIC/AD/C/2009/001239
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.21.7.09 with the PIO, RCF, Kapurthala stating that since the RTI Act, 2005 empowers the citizens to inspect any Government work, he would like to inspect the following work being or to be carried out by RCF during 1.8.09 to 31.12.09 along with an expert:
'Inspection and testing of supplies of CG12 Rev 1 vinyl flooring when conducted by RCF Representative at their own premises' On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.7.9.09 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information.
On still not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint dt.21.10.09 before CIC. CIC/AD/C/2009/001279
2. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.21.7.09 with the PIO, RCF, Kapurthala stating that since the RTI Act, 2005 empowers the citizens to inspect any Government work, he would like to inspect the following work being or to be carried out by RCF during 1.8.09 to 31.12.09 along with an expert:
'Inspection and testing of supplies of CG07 PVC Leathercloth when conducted by RCF Representative at their own premises' On not receiving any reply, he filed an appeal dt.7.9.09 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information.
Still not receiving any reply, he filed a complaint dt.21.10.09 before CIC.
3. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for September 20, 2010.
4. Shri Gurjit Singh, PIO & Sr.PRO represented the Public Authority.
5. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
6. The Commission relies on the decision given by the Commission in a similar case No.CIC/AD/A/2010/000211 on .20.5.2010. The decision is as given below:
11. From the arguments of the parties and the documents available on record, it is observed that the Appellant herein has sought inspection and testing of supplies of CG12 Rev 1 vinyl flooring, conducted by RITES representative in terms of provision of the RTI Act 2005. In this context it is pertinent to discuss the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, specifically the definition clauses, Section 2
(f) defining "information", Section 2 (i) defining "record" and Section 2 (j) defining "right to information"
as follows:
Section 2 Definitions
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, 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;
(i) "record" includes--
(a) any document, manuscript and file;
(b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;
(c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and
(d) any other material produced by a computer or any other device;
(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 the right to--
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video
cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;
It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, the Appellant has sought inspection of the "process of inspection" rather than the outcome of the process reduced in the form of a report. The process of inspection sought to be inspected by the Appellant, does not qualify as "information" since it does not fall within any of the specifications as stated in Section 2 (f) as discussed hereinabove. The process of inspection is neither a record, nor document, nor email, opinion, advice nor does it qualify as information under any of the other clauses of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The "process of inspection"
which is sought to be inspected by the Appellant does not qualify as a "record" defined under the Section 2 (i) of the RTI Act 2005 either. Hence the "right to information" as ensured under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act 2005, specifically the clause Section 2(j) (i) which makes "inspection of work, documents, records;...... " accessible is not applicable to this case. Since no documents, records etc exists about the "process of inspection", hence no work, in the form of a report, as an outcome of an inspection is available to be inspected by the Appellant.
12. While reading the provisions of any Act the cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes laying down that the various relevant provisions of any Statute/Act must be read together for a harmonious construction of the true purport of the Statute should by no means be lost sight of. Likewise, the provisions of Section 2(j) (i) of the RTI Act 2005 cannot be read in isolation and must be read harmoniously alongwith the provisions of Section 2 (f) and Section 2(i) of the RTI Act 2005, so as to construe the true intent of the RTI Act. The Appellant is however allowed to obtain samples of the supplies of CG12 Rev 1 vinyl flooring, under provisions of the Section 2(j) (iii) of the Act, which the Appellant may get tested from an independent expert on his own. However, as discussed above, the scope and ambit of the RTI Act does not provide for a citizen to inspect an ongoing inspection process till the outcome thereof is reduced to records forming information. In the event that such requests are allowed, it will only allow more and more volunteers seeking to inspect and oversee such inspection processes being carried out by experts.
7. The Commission holds that the decision as given above also applies to the two instant cases. The Commission accordingly advises the Appellant to file a fresh RTI application seeking samples of the materials so that the same can be tested at his own cost by an expert outside the RCF testing venue.
8. The appeal is rejected and the cases closed at the Commission's end.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Ram Bahadur Rai H.No.5/118 Rachna Single Storey Vaishali Ghaziabad 201 012
2. The PIO Rail Coach Factory Kapurthala Punjab
3. Officer incharge, NIC