Siba Sankar Patro vs Department Of Posts on 13 July, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Siba Sankar Patro vs Department Of Posts on 13 July, 2021

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                      के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                               Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                                Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/POSTS/A/2019/139688-UM

Mr. Siba Sankar Patro

                                                                           ....अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                           VERSUS
                                            बनाम

CPIO,
O/o the Superintendent of
Posts Offices, Department of
Posts, Aska Divsion, Aska
(Ganjam), Odisha-761110

                                                                          प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent



Date of Hearing         :           12.07.2021
Date of Decision        :           13.07.2021

Date of RTI application                                                    06.12.2018
CPIO's response                                                            02.01.2019/
                                                                           30.07.2019
Date of the First Appeal                                                   14.02.2019
First Appellate Authority's response                                       23.05.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                       16.08.2019

                                          ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points:

Page 1 of 4

The CPIO, Posts, Odisha vide letter dated 02.01.2019 furnished a reply to the Appellant.

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 23.05.2019 stated as follows:

The FAA further directed the CPIO, Aska Division for point 02 to forward the RTI application to the concerned CPIO, Berhampur Region, for necessary action. Furthermore, the CPIO was directed to provide the available information on point 03 of the application. In compliance with the above direction, the CPIO, Behrampur, provided available information on point 02 and 03 of the RTI application wherein list of CAPIO under Behrampur Region was attached. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent;

Respondent: Absent;

Page 2 of 4

Both the parties remained absent during the hearing. The contact details of both the parties were also not available to enable the Commission to carry out Audio Conferencing owing to palpable COVID scare in the country.

On perusal of record, the Commission noted that the available information had already been furnished to the Applicant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. With regard to point no. 03 of the RTI application, the Commission observed that no specific information was sought by the Applicant as per the definition Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

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 and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), 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."

Page 3 of 4

At the outset the Commission observed that under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and on perusal of the replies available on record from Aska Division and Berhampur Region, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित एवं सत्यापित प्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के. राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 13.07.2021 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission