Central Information Commission
Ms. Chhavi Yadav vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Iocl) on 23 March, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
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/IOCLD/A/2019/645629
Chhavi Yadav ...अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondent
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 20-05-2019 FA : 13-06-2019 SA : 18-07-2019
CPIO : 11-06-2019 FAO : 01-07-2019 Hearing: 15-03-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information regarding "Is circular no.F.NO. 28034/9/2009-Estt.(A) from Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) implemented in Indian Oil Corporation Limited. If implemented what is the procedure for spouse to avail benefit under above mentioned circular".
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 13.06.2019 requesting that the information should be provided to her. The first appellate authority was ordered on 01.07.2019 and disposed of her first appeal. She filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to her and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Page 1 of 5Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri Udit Jain, CPIO attended the hearing through video- conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that no information was provided to her by the respondent on her RTI application dated 20.05.2019.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 11.06.2019, they have informed the appellant that "the information sought is in the form of question/answer, which does not fall under the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the Act". The respondent submitted that vide order dated 01.07.2019, the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observed that the query of the appellant is in the nature of seeking explanation/opinion/advice/confirmation/clarification from the CPIO viz. "Is circular no.F.NO. 28034/9/2009-Estt.(A) from Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) implemented in Indian Oil Corporation Limited. If implemented what is the procedure for spouse to avail benefit under above mentioned circular, etc." and she has expected that the CPIO firstly should analyze the documents and then provide information to the appellant. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to compile information as per the desire of the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
7. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 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."Page 2 of 5
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making 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."
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:
6. "....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."
Page 3 of 5Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, 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; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
8. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 15-03-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Corporate Office, Plot No. 3079/3
Sadiq Nagar, JB Tito Marg, New Delhi-110049
2. Chhavi Yadav
Page 5 of 5