Central Information Commission
N Srinivasan vs Controller General Of Defence Accounts ... on 5 February, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CGDAC/A/2018/150797
N Srinivasan ....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o CGDA, Ulan Batar Road,
Palam,
Delhi Cantt -110010 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
RTI application filed on : 11/04/2018
CPIO replied on : 16/05/2018
First appeal filed on : 31/05/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 04/07/2018
Second Appeal dated : 10/08/2018
Date of Hearing : 05/02/2020
Date of Decision : 05/02/2020
lwpuk vk;qDr : fnO; izdk"k flUgk
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : DIVYA PRAKASH SINHA
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information pertaining to a specific table given by him relating to catch up rule wherein orders have been issued by the Court of Law and the number and date of DoPT letter (provisions of which) were followed from 31.01.1995 to 21.01.2002 by the CGDA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.1
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Murari Kumar, Accounts Officer & CPIO, O/o CGDA, Ulan Batar Road, Palam, Delhi Cantt. present in person.
Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. He further stated that he has given reference of a CGDA letter in his RTI Application and wants the CPIO to provide information in the context of that letter in a specified tabulated form provided by him.
CPIO submitted that the Appellant has been informed that information sought in a tabulated form at para 1 of the RTI Application will involve interpretation of CPIO of "catch up rule" which is not mandated under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that had the Appellant sought copy of specific orders/rules/judgments available in records, the same could have been provided.
Decision Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of the proceedings during hearing observes that Section 2(f) of the RTI Act provides for the CPIO to provide such information which 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; "
Further, Section 2(j) of the RTI Act enumerates that "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 the right to-
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;.."2
File No : CIC/CGDAC/A/2018/150797 CPIO has a statutory duty to respond to RTI Applications as per the provisions of the RTI Act, but an RTI Applicant also has to adhere to the same provisions while seeking information under the Act.
In view of aforesaid observations, it will suffice to say that the CPIO is not supposed to create/interpret information in respect of queries/clarifications. Redressal of grievance, non compliance of rules, contesting the actions of respondent public authority and suggesting correction in government policies are outside the purview of the RTI Act.
In view of foregoing, Commission upholds the submission of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Divya Prakash Sinha ( द काश िस हा )
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Haro Prasad Sen
Dy. Registrar
011-26106140 / [email protected]
हरो साद सेन, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक / Date
3