Central Information Commission
Dr. C. P. Gupta vs High Commission Of India, London, ... on 17 March, 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 ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/HCLUK/A/2018/616505
Dr. C. P. Gupta ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/o. External Affairs, New ... ितवादी/Respondent
Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 22-11-2017 FA : 15-03-2018 SA:13-04-2018
CPIO : 13-03-2018 FAO : 27-03-2018 Hearing: 16-03-2020
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. External Affairs, New Delhi seeking information as follows:-
"(1) Has Mrs. Manjree Garg ever applied for attestation of the Power of Attorney (POA)?
(2) If yes, please arrange me the copy of the application form and the supporting documents (e.g. the copies of the court cases pending against her in Indian Court etc.) submitted by Manjree Garg for the attestation of the POA.
(3) Whether any Consular officer has ever attested any Power of Attorney submitted by Mrs. Manjree Garg at HCI London or any other Indian Consulates in UK.
(4) Please arrange me the copy of such Power of Attorney attested by the Consular Officer."
2. The CPIO responded on 13-03-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 15-03-2018 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 Page 1 of 5 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, Dr. C. P. Gupta attended the hearing through video conferencing. Ms. Deepa Jain, US(RTI) and Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, RTI Consultant participated in the hearing representing the respondent in person. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that there is delay in furnishing a reply to the RTI application and therefore, an appropriate legal action should be initiated against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
5. The representative of the respondent submitted that the appellant is seeking third party information which is exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and no public interest would be served in disclosing the same. Therefore, they have denied him this information. In this regard, they have already furnished a reply to the appellant vide their letter dated 13-03-2018. Regarding the delay, the representative of the CPIO submitted that the exact reasons for the delay can be ascertained from the concerned CPIO of the case.
Decision:
6. This Commission observes that the documents of Mrs. Manjree Garg held by the respondent in a fiduciary capacity is exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) r/w Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the absence of any larger public interest and hence, the exemption claimed by the respondent is justified as its disclosure has potential to cause unwarranted invasion in the privacy of Mrs. Manjree Garg.
7. Further, this Commission observes that on point nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the RTI application, the appellant attempts to elicit answers to his questions with prefixes, such as, 'has', 'if yes' and 'whether'. Therefore, the CPIO is not supposed to interpret information; or to furnish replies to situational queries; or to furnish clarifications. Hence, the queries seeking answers and explanations from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of 'information' u/s Section 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 Page 2 of 5 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 is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497,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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
"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."
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 Page 3 of 5 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."
8. This Commission also observes that there is considerable delay in responding to the RTI application and therefore, the then CPIO dealing with the case who could not provide a reply to the appellant within the timeline prescribed under the RTI Act, 2005 is directed to show cause in writing the reasons for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act and explain why penalty should not be imposed on him, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date 16-03-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
M/o. External Affairs, Under
Secretary & Nodal CPIO,
(RTICell), Room No.-2021, A-Wing,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Bhawan,
23-D, Janpath, NewDelhi-110011
2. Dr. C. P. Gupta
Page 5 of 5