Central Information Commission
Atul K Agarwal vs Department Of Health & Family Welfare on 10 June, 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.:- CIC/MOHFW/A/2017/153995-BJ
Dr. Atul Kumar Agarwal
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Under Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
PNDT Section, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.06.2019
Date of Decision : 10.06.2019
Date of RTI application 07.05.2017
CPIO's response 17.05.2017/
31.05.2017
Date of the First Appeal 17.06.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 13.07.2017
(mentioned in 2nd
Appeal)
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 03.08.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points in respect of PC-PNDT Act, 1994 & Rules, 1996, number of u/s machines and Genetic Establishment in all colleges/institutions (names as mentioned in the RTI application) along with the year of original registration and renewal year; whether the renewal was done or not, if yes, the details thereof, if not, then reasons therefore, etc. The Section Officer, vide its letter dated 17.05.2017, transferred the RTI application to the Under Secretary, M/oH&FW, New Delhi, with a request to provide information directly to the Appellant. Subsequently, the CPIO, M/oH&FW (PNDT Section), vide its letter dated 31.05.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant wherein for points 01 & 02, Page 1 of 3 transferred the application to the CPIO, Govt. of NCT, Delhi and CPIO, IEC, M/o H&FW respectively, for further necessary action at their end. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 13.07.2017, provided additional information on point no. 02.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar, US and Mr. Deepak Bhatt, ASO;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Rahul Varshney, Network Engineer NIC studio at Lucknow confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent explained that the information sought had been provided initially by the CPIO but subsequently clarified further by the FAA. A reference was made to the decision of the Commission in similar matters in Appeal No(s).CIC/MEDCI/A/2017/150232-BJ+CIC/MEDCI/A/2017/153706-BJ dated 12.02.2019 and Appeal No.:- CIC/HAFWD/A/2017/147023/MH&FW-BJ dated 06.06.2019. The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent (PNDT Section) dated 07.06.2019, wherein it was submitted that the available information had already been provided to the Appellant in the right manner.
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."
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:
Page 2 of 36. "....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."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and in the light of the decisions of the Commission in aforesaid matters, no further intervention of the Commission is required.
The Appeal stands 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: 10.06.2019
Page 3 of 3