Central Information Commission
Muhammad Hanif vs Northern Railway on 19 February, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NRAIL/A/2018/139719
Muhammad Hanif ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/O. Railways, Northern ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Railway, Lucknow-226001, UP.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 23-11-2017 FA : 01-02-2018 SA : 22-06-2018
CPIO : 21-03-2018 FAO : 27-03-2018 Hearing : 18-02-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o Railways, Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP seeking information on eight points pertaining to non-payment of his pension and non-supply of his basic retirement form after his retirement on 30.09.2017 from the post of Loco Cleaner in Diesel Shed, Northern Railway, Aalambag, Lucknow including, inter-alia;
"1. If the necessary documents (office orders etc.) are not available on the appellant's service register and personal file, then if the appellant has any responsibility and fault in it, legible certified copies documents, Page 1 of 5 circular/policy/rule specifying the full details of the said responsibility and appellant's fault may be provided,
2. If the necessary documents (office orders etc.) are not available on the appellant's service register and personal file, and if the appellant is not responsible or at fault with respect to the same, please provide the name and designation of the responsible and defaulting officers,
3. Please provide legible certified copies of the complete information, including supporting documents, circular/policy/rule, of the grounds for not providing the original forms of retirement to the appellant, etc."
2. The CPIO provided a reply vide letter dated 21.03.2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 01.02.2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 27.03.2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant's representative, Shri Saidur Rahman, and the respondent, Shri Sanjay Kumar, DFM (Accounts), and Smt. Lovely Gyan, APO (Personnel), M/o Railways, Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP attended the hearing through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant submitted that vide his RTI application dated 23.11.2017, he has sought information on eight points. The CPIO (Personnel), vide reply dated 21.03.2018, provided information referring to their letter dated 22.02.2018 whereby they have already provided the information. However, a copy of the letter dated 22.02.2018 has not been provided by the respondent. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide a duly certified copy of the said letter.
Page 2 of 55. The respondent, Smt. Lovely Gyan, APO (Personnel) submitted that the letter referred to in the reply dated 21.03.2018 is the letter dated 26.02.2018 vide which information was provided to the appellant in his another RTI application seeking similar information. She further submitted that it was due to typographical error that the letter has been mentioned as dated 22.02.2018 instead of 26.02.2018. The respondent apprised the Commission that the appellant, vide his RTI application, is seeking answers to the questions relating to his service issues. She further submitted that he is seeking interpretation of Railway's rules and circulars by the CPIO so as to provide him with the rule that is best applicable in his case. She furthermore submitted that as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve problems raised by the appellant; or to furnish replies to situational queries; or to furnish clarification.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, agrees with the submissions of the respondent that the appellant, vide his RTI application in question, is seeking interpretation of Railway's rules and circulars by the CPIO so as to provide him with the rule that is best applicable in his case. The Commission notes that the appellant has not cited any specific circular in his RTI application with respect to which he needs information. He is seeking clarifications and answers to the vague information sought by him. The appellant is expecting the CPIO to interpret all the Railway rules and circulars, and provide him rules/part of the rules that are applicable in his case. The Commission notes that in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve problems raised by the appellant; or to furnish replies to situational queries; or to furnish clarifications. The CPIO only provides information available with him or held by him. Thus, the appellant cannot expect the respondent to interpret rules for him. In Page 3 of 5 such situations, the relevant rules - as a whole, should be provided to the appellant. The appellant is free to make interpretations as desired by him. The Commission finds no infirmity in the CPIO's action. Moreso, the Commission observes that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011] has held as under:
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."
7. The Commission, however, directs the respondent, CPIO (Personnel) to issue a corrigendum correcting the date of the letter mentioned in the reply dated 21.03.2018 and provide a copy of the letter dated 26.02.2018 to the appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु मारगुप्ता) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयुक्त) दिनांक / Date :-18-02-2020 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमाग), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, M/O. Railways, Sr. DMM/Nodal PIO, Northern Railway, RTI Cell, DRM's Office, Hazratganj, Lucknow Divn., Lucknow , UP-226001.
2. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Page 5 of 5