Central Information Commission
K Sree Rama Kishore vs National Thermal Power Corporation ... on 18 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NTPCO/A/2022/647150
K SREE RAMA KISHORE ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
NTPC LTD, RTI CELL,
ENGINEERING OFFICE COMPLEX,
4TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 185,
SECTOR-24, NOIDA, U.P. 201301. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16/05/2023
Date of Decision : 16/05/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18/06/2022
CPIO replied on : 16/08/2022
First appeal filed on : 26/07/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 24/08/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 31/08/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.06.2022 seeking the following information:1
"1. I would like to observe records NTPC Simhadri Apstate implementation of moef s.o254 guidelines under RTI, 2005 section 2j please issue time to observe records as per RTI, 2005.
2. I would like to know information of fly ash sending to 160 km away industry from NTPC simhadri ntpc by fallowing moef guidelines of s.o 254 please issue information under RTI, 2005."
The CPIO furnished a Para wise reply to the appellant on 16.08.2022 stating as under:
"1. NTPC is complying with all norms regarding this. As the matter is having commercial implication, the same is exempted under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. As per MOEF notification dated 31.12.2021, transportation of the fly ash is already being done and same shall be provided as per the guidelines based on the request received. Appeal, if any, may be sent within 30 days of the receipt of this letter. Following are the details of the Appellate Authority of NTPC Limited, New Delhi."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.07.2022. FAA's order, dated 24.08.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: S. Nandan, CPIO along with Vikash Kumar, DGM NTPC Noida present through intra-video conference and Aditya, Sr. Manager (HR) present through video-conference.
The Appellant while expressing his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply, submitted that NTPC is not following proper guidelines/ notifications of MOEF in fixing the sale/contract prices for transportation of fly ash, for NTPC Simhadri Project.2
The CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his written submission filed prior to hearing, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
"....the information sought by the appellant are not specific and it is represented that, the ash sale/rate contracts as per guidelines are renewed on yearly basis through auction and hence, involves commercial implication. NTPC Simhadri had complied to all conditions stipulated by MoEF notifications regarding fly ash disposal and as sought by the appellant in RTI appeal, reply has been provided again vide letter dt. 24/08/2022. Annual compliance reports submitted to statutory bodies for FY 2021-22, 2022-23 is enclosed as Annexure-1 & 2 for reference..."
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records is in agreement with the submissions of the CPIO that the Appellant has not sought for any specific information per se in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act rather the queries raised in the RTI Application are very vague and unspecific.
For better understanding the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was 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.........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, 3 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], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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 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...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
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." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the para wise reply furnished by the CPIO is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.4
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding the alleged inaction of NTPC in determining the sale/contract price of fly ash against the norms is purely a matter of grievance which is outside the mandate of RTI Act.
In view of the above, the Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.
However, in pursuance to clause 4 of hearing notice, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest written submission free of charge with the Appellant immediately upon receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5