Central Information Commission
Benjamin Thomas vs Food Corporation Of India on 15 September, 2020
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 ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/FCIND/A/2019/110670
Benjamin Thomas ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, Food Corporation of ... ितवादी /Respondent
India, District Office, Power House
Road, Near Public /Library,
Kollam, Kerala.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04.01.2019 FA : 21.02.2019 SA : 08.03.2019
CPIO : 03.02.2019 FAO : 25.02.2019 Hearing : 08.09.2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Food Corporation of India, District Office, Power House Road, Near Public /Library, Kollam, Kerala. The appellant seeking information on two points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) Copy of FCI Circulars/Instructions/Office order or any other letters preventing to grant special casual leave to officers/officials who are availing petrol conveyance allowance/transportation allowance;
(ii) Copy of FCI Circulars/Instructions/Office Order or any other letters to grant special casual leave to employees who are absent due to failure to transport, or disturbances or picketing or imposition of curfew etc. Page 1 of 4
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 21.02.2019 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 25.02.2019 and disposed of his first appeal. He 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 him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-conferencing. The respondent, Ms. Asha Antony, Manager (G) & CPIO attended the hearing through audio-conferencing.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 21.08.2020 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 04.01.2019.
6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 03.02.2019, they have informed the appellant that "The information regarding the grant of Special Casual Leave is already available in the DOPT website and FCI website. The information available in the public domain is no longer held by the public authority and the public authority is not obliged to provide the same to an applicant". The respondent submitted that relevant web-link has also been provided to the appellant. The respondent submitted that the FAA vide order dated 25.02.2019 had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the query of the appellant amounts to seeking explanation/opinion/advice from the CPIO viz. 'Copy of FCI Circulars/Instructions/Office order or any other letters preventing to grant special casual leave to officers/officials who are availing petrol conveyance allowance/transportation allowance, etc.'. The appellant has sought non-specific information in his RTI application. Further, the CPIO is not supposed to analyze the information from various circulars and then create informationas in the manner as sought by the appellant. This legal principle is supported by the decision dated 07- 01-2016 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015 Page 2 of 4 titled as The Registrar of Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K Batra & Ors., wherein, it was held as under:-
"15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, "right to information" under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which it is sought by the applicant."
8. Therefore, the CPIO is not obliged to provide clarification and interpretation of the documents to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. This sort of queries seeking clarification from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
9. Nonetheless, the respondent has provided relevant web-link to the appellant which is closely related to the subject-matter. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कुमार गु ता)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ता
सूचना आयु त)
Information Commissioner (स त
दनांक / Date 08.09.2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स$ािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 3 of 4
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO,
Food Corporation of India,
Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, District Office,
Power House Road, Near Public/Library,
Kollam, Kerala-691001.
2. Benjamin Thomas,
Page 4 of 4