Central Information Commission
Mrm K Dayanandan Fwd By Deptt Of Posts vs Department Of Posts on 9 June, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/001379/7811
09 June 2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. M. K. Dayanandan
39, University Nagar,
P.O. KAU, Thrissur
Kerala - 680656
Respondent : CPIO & Assistant Director (PG)
Department of Posts
O/o the Postmaster General
Central Region, Kochi - 682020
RTI application filed on : 08/04/2014
PIO replied on : 12/05/2014
First appeal filed on : 23/05/2014
First Appellate Authority order : No Order
Second Appeal dated : 10/07/2014
Information sought:
The appellant has sought the information regarding the date on which the clauses of PO Guide Pt. 1 (Rules and Regulation relating to the Inland post) based on the Indian Post Office Act and Rules issued by DG of Posts has superseded after the date 01 July 85. Provide the Sl. No. of clauses so superseded. Also provide the details of the Competent Authority to send suggestion for addition and alterations of Rules and Regulation relating to the Inland Post. Also, provide the duties, responsibilities & powers of Assistant Director (mails) in Central Region Kochi, as per postal manual and various details regarding the duties of SPM and Postal Assistant in a Sub PO with regard receipt/delivery/redirection and return of the procedure of domestic speed post as per postal manual. Provide the duties and responsibilities of a postman as per Manual Vol 6 Pt3 and other publications. Also provide a CTC of (1) Office Memo no. 57-01/2010-BD&MD, Min. of Comm. & IT Dept of posts, Business Development & Marketing Directorate, Dak Bhawan and New Delhi dated 01st June 2010 and (2) 11 April 2012 on Procedure of Delivery of Speed Post Articles and (3) Office Memorandum No. 51-58/2010-BD&MD, Min. of Comm. & IT Dept. of Posts, Business Development & Marketing Directorate, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi dated 06/06/2011 and various other related information.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar CPIO's representative through VC 09446734343 Page 1 of 3 The appellant was given an opportunity to participate in the hearing but he is absent. The CPIO's representative stated that the information requested by the appellant in his RTI application dated 08/04/2014, as available on record, was provided vide letter dated 12/05/2014 and further information was furnished by the FAA vide order dated 07/07/2014. He submitted that it can be seen from the material on record that the appellant is insisting on providing certified copies of certain documents which are available in public domain on the postal department's website www.indiapost.gov.in; he contended that once the information is displayed on the website it is no longer 'held' by the public authority and cannot be accessed under the provisions of the RTI Act. In support of his contention he cited the Commission's decision dated 12/04/2007 [file no. CIC/AT/A/2007/00112].
Decision notice:
A Coordinate Bench of this Commission in its decision dated 12/04/2007 [Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00112] [Shri K. Lall v Sh M K Bagri, Assistant Registrar of Companies & CPIO] has held as under:
".....it would mean that once certain information is placed in public domain accessible to the citizens either freely or on payment of a predetermined price, that information cannot be said to be 'held' or 'under the control' of the public authority and thus would cease to be an 'information' accessible under the RTI Act."
The above view has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 01/06/2012 (W.P.No 11271 of 2009-Registrar of Companies & Ors. vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr.) observing as under:-
"31. In the context of the object of the RTI Act, and the various provisions thereof, in my view, the said expression ―held by or under the control of any public authority used in section 2(j) of the RTI Act deserves a wider and a more meaningful interpretation. The expression "Hold" is defined in the Black's Law dictionary, 6th Edition, inter alia, in the same way as "to keep" i.e. to retain, to maintain possession of, or authority over.
32. The expression ―held is also defined in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, inter alia, as ―prevent from getting away; keep fast, grasp, have a grip on. It is also defined, inter alia, as ―not let go; keep, retain".
33. The expression ―control is defined in the Advanced Law Lexicon by P.N. Ramanatha Aiyar 3rd Edition Reprint 2009 and it reads as follows:
"(As a verb) To restrain; to check; to regulate; to govern; to keep under check; to hold in restraint; to dominate; to rule and direct; to counteract; to exercise a directing, restraining or governing influence over; to govern with reference thereto; to subject to authority; to have under command, and authority over, to have authority over the particular matter. (Ame. Cyc)"
From the above, it appears that the expression ―held by or ―under the control of any public authority, in relation to ―information, means that information which is held by the public authority under its control to the exclusion of others. It cannot mean that information which the public authority has already ―let go, i.e. shared generally with the citizens, and also that information, in respect of which there is a statutory mechanism evolved, (independent of the RTI Act) which obliges the public authority to share the same with the citizenry by following the prescribed procedure, and upon fulfillment of the prescribed conditions. This is so, because in respect of such information, which the public authority is statutorily obliged to disseminate, it cannot be said that the public authority ―hold or ―controls the same. There is no exclusivity in such holding or control. In fact, the control vests in the seeker of the information who has only to operate the statutorily prescribed mechanism to access the information. It is not this kind of Page 2 of 3 information, which appears to fall within the meaning of the expression ―right to information, as the information in relation to which the ―right to information is specifically conferred by the RTI Act is that information which "is held by or under the control of any public authority".
It is apparent from the decisions cited above that once the information is brought into the public domain by placing the same on the website the same would cease to be information accessible under the RTI Act.
The CPIO's representative has submitted that the information 'held' by the public authority has been provided. The appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to canvass his case/contest the CPIO's submissions. In the above circumstances we are unable to provide any relief.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 3 of 3