Central Information Commission
Rajesh Gouhari vs Edcil (India) Limited on 17 March, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/EDCIL/C/2019/129085
Rajesh Gouhari ..... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
EdCIL (India) Limited
EdCIL House, 18A, Sector- 16A,
Noida-201301 U.P ितवादीगण /Respondent
.... ितवादीगण
Date of Hearing : 17/03/2021
Date of Decision : 17/03/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 16/01/2019
CPIO replied on : 29/01/2019 & 28/03/2019
First appeal filed on : 25/01/2019
First Appellate Authority order : NA
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 15/06/2019
1
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed RTI application dated 16.01.2019 seeking information on following four points regarding EdCIL CDA Rules 2003, including inter-alia;
"1. Whether EdCIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules notified in 2003 are vetted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
2. If so, supply copy of complete file notings and correspondence in respect - of Government's approval for Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules 2003 of EdCIL.
3. Whether EdCIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules notified 2003 afterward are vetted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
4. If so, supply copy of complete file notings and correspondence relating to approval accorded by the Government for those EdCIL rules."
The CPIO, EdCIL furnished a reply to the Complainant on 29.01.2019 stating as follows:-
"Since, the information sought is more than 16 years old the relevant files/notings are being traced out on priority basis and the information will be provided as soon as possible."
Subsequently on 18.03.2019, CPIO, EdCIL furnished a revised point-wise reply to the Complainant stating as follows:-
1. "Yes
2. The information sought is generic in nature and not specific.
3. Same as mentioned at point No. 2 above.
4. Not applicable."
Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 25.01.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through intra-video conference.2
Respondent: Sunil Kumar Mathur, DGM (HR & Admn) & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Complainant stated that he is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO claiming that the information sought for is generic in nature. He further insisted that the CPIO should provide him with the relevant information.
The CPIO submitted that the Complainant has not provided reference of any file number or record and therefore he was informed that the information cannot be provided without specifying his requirement.
At the behest of the Commission, the CPIO submitted that if he can ascertain any available file noting(s) corresponding to point no.2 of the RTI Application, he will provide the same to the Complainant.
Decision At the outset, based on the relief sought for in the matter, the instant Complaint is being treated as a Second Appeal.
The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that the CPIO has appropriately replied to the RTI Application and concededly, the information sought for therein is in the form of seeking clarification and deduction by the CPIO which is not as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It will be relevant here to cite certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act. The said judgments are reproduced hereunder:
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. 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 3 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. 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." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court 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....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 has had access to this 4 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...."
Nonetheless, since the CPIO has provided a factual reply to the information sought for at point no.1 of the RTI Application, the CPIO is now directed to ascertain the availability of the corresponding file noting(s) and correspondence(s) sought for at point no.2 of the RTI Application and provide the same to the Complainant. In the event that no such file noting(s) and correspondence(s) are available in the record, a categorical reply to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO. The said information should be provided free of cost to the Complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
सरोज पुनहािन)
Saroj Punhani (सरोज हािन
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक /
5