Central Information Commission
Sreeraj S. R. vs Department Of Posts on 4 October, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/POSTS/A/2022/146873
Sreeraj S. R. .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Senior Superintendent of Post Offices & CPIO,
Department of Posts-India, Thiruvananthapuram North Division,
Thiruvananthapuram-695001 (Kerala).
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.05.2022
CPIO replied on : 20.05.2022
First appeal filed on : 06.06.2022
First Appellate Authority order : 01.07.2022
Second Appeal received at CIC : 30.09.2022
Date of Hearing : 03.10.2023
Date of Decision : 03.10.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
3. sir. did anyone or from any higher offices approached you legally/verbally for any kind of information regarding my Account (A/NO.3609221463, 3579551621, 3606981810...) held with your Attingal branch. If yes please give one copy of such requested details, including when and what are the details you given to that addressee.Page 1 of 5
2. What are the procedures if any one approached you for someone's account details.
3. In such case do you send any info/permission request to the account holder through letter or SMS before giving the account details.
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 20.05.2022, as under:
1. The information sought is not available with this CPIO, hence could not be supplied.
2 & 3 the question is hypothetical in nature, which is not coming under the purview of the information as defined in section 2(f) of RTI act2005.
Hence could not be supplied.
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 06.06.2022.
• The FAA vide order dated 01.07.2022 upheld the reply of the CPIO:
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 18.09.2023 as under:
The applicant shri Sreeraj SR, Mavuvila Veedu, Arayil, Pakalkury PO, Pallikal, Trivandrum, had preferred an RTI request dated 09.05.2022 and information was supplied to the applicant vide this Office Lr. No. CCC/TVN/RTI/R.-20/22 dated 20.05.2022.
The RTI requestor sought for Information on the following points:
1. Did anyone or from any higher offices approached you/these branches Legally /verbally for any kind of information regarding my Accounts (A/c No. 9134734575, 3606981810, 3579551621, 3609221463) held with Attingal branch and Pallickal branch. If yes please give one copy of such requested details, when and what are the details you given to that addressee.
2. What are the procedures if anyone approached you for someone's account details
3. in such case do you send any info/through letter or SMS before giving the account details.
Regarding the Point No. 1 of the RTI Request, the following points are submitted for consideration:
The RTI requestor had sought information regarding enquiries conducted by any person/higher offices about his accounts standing at Attingal branch and Pallickal branch approaching you/these branches legally/verbally. As per DOPT Page 2 of 5 OM No:11/2/2008-IR dated 10.07.2008 the Act, however, does not require the PIO to deduce some conclusion from the 'material' and supply the 'conclusion' so deduced to the Applicant. Since the question is not specific in nature and the information sought 15 not available with this CPIO, the reply was given as the information sought is not available with this CPIO.
Regarding the Point No. 2 & 3 of the RTI Request, the following points are submitted for consideration:-
The RTI Requestor had sought for the information regarding the procedures followed by the Department, f someone approaches for the account details of any other Person. As per section 2 (f) of RTI Act Public Information officer is not required to deduce some conclusion from the material and supply conclusion so deduced to the applicant and the information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority.
'The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Moreover, from the Govt. of India order OM No. 1/18/2011-IR dated 16.09.2011, it is pointed out that 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.
Hence the CPIO decided that the information sought on the Original RTI 1s based Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present Respondent: Mr. Vishnu Amreesh (Sr. Supt.) (CPIO) Page 3 of 5 Appellant has submitted that he has not received the information. He further requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the requisite information.
Upon the Commissions instance, the CPIO has stated that on point no 1 the information is not available and as regards the point no 2 and 3 of the RTI application the queries are hypothetical in nature. He further affirmed that he would abide by the orders of the Commission.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 5 Page 5 of 5