Central Information Commission
Neeraj vs Embassy Of India, Bishkek, Kyrgyztan on 26 March, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EOIBK/A/2024/607253
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/EOIBK/C/2024/607250
Shri Neeraj ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Embassy of India, Bishkek, Kyrgyztan ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.03.2025
Date of Decision : 24.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04.02.2024
PIO replied on : 12.02.2024
First Appeal filed on : 15.02.2024
First Appellate Order on : 19.02.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 22.02.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"An application under the LIFE & LIBERTY provision of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005 furnishes the following details within 48 hours because it is related to my relatives career who wants to take admission in MBBS Universities of Kyrgyz republic, I WANT TO KNOW URGENT INFORMATION REGARDING MBBS IN KYRGYZSTAN FOR MY RELATIVE ADMISSION I HAVE ATTACHED 1 SUPPORTING DOCUMENT WITH THIS RTI WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY DEPUTY MINISTER OF MINISTRY OF THE HEALTH OF KYRGYZ REPUBLIC TO INDIAN EMBASSY BISHKEK AND NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION DATED 13.07.2023
1. WHETHER THIS ATTACHED LETTER RECEIVED BY INDIAN EMBASSY OR NOT?
2. ATTACHED LETTER IS GENUINE OR FAKE?
3. IF LETTER IS GENUINE, WHETHER AVICENNA INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL UNIVERSITY (AIMU) FULFILLING ALL FMGL 2021 NMC REGULATIONS AND INDIAN STUDENTS WILL GET THE LICENCE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE AS GENERAL PRACTIONER AFTER COMPLETION OF COURSE FROM AIMU Page 1 of 4
4. WHETHER 6 MEDICAL CLINICS MENTIONED IN LETTER THOSE ARE ASSOCIATED WITH AVICENNA INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL UNIVERSITY ARE WORKING OR NOT?
5. HOW MANY BEDDED HOSPITAL IS ATTACHED WITH AVICENNA INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL UNIVERSITY?
6. WHAT IS THE DURATION OF COURSE IN ALL KYRGYZSTAN MEDICAL UNIVERSITIES
7. WHETHER KYRGYSTAN UNIVERSITIES WILL PROVIDE 12 MONTHS INTERNSHIP AFTER. COMPLETION OF COURSE AS PER NEW NMC GAZETTE FMGL-2021 OR NOT.
8. WHETHER KYRGYZ HEALTH MINISTRY PROVIDING LICENCE TO PRACTICE TO INDIAN CITIZENS AFTER COMPLETION OF COURSE & INTERNSHIP.
9. WHAT ARE THE RULES IN KYRGYZ REPUBLIC TO GET LICENCE TO PRACTICE FOR AN INDIAN CITIZEN.
10. WHETHER ALL KYRGYZ MEDICAL UNIVERSITIES FOLLOWING NEW NMC GAZETTE FMGL-2021.
11. HOW MANY KYRGYZ MEDICAL UNIVERSITIES HAVE THEIR OWN HOSPITALS NOT CLINICS"
The CPIO vide letter dated 12.02.2024 replied as under:-
"Reply:- Please refer to RTI query no. MEABS/R/E/23/00001 dated 04-02-2024 under RTI Act-2005.
The information sought is not available with this CPIO in the form as defined at section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The applicant is requested to take note of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act which has defined information as any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advises, press releases, circulars, orders, log books, contracts, references, 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 law for the time being in force. The term information, as defined in the Act, thus refers to any material in any form and the various forms have been also defined in the Act. The information sought in his/her application by the applicant is not as per this definition. The applicant is being further informed that as per the extant instructions, the CPIO is not required to gather information from various sources and create information and provide it to RTI Applicants. A citizen has a right to get material from a public authority which is held by or under the control of that public authority. It means that the CPIO is required to supply the material in the form as held by him, but not to do research on behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the material and then supply it to him. Also, the CPIO is not supposed to create information and supply it to the applicant."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.02.2024. The FAA vide order dated 19.02.2024 held as under:-
"Reply:- The RTI application, the reply of the CPIO and the Appeal have been examined. The CPIO has informed that the information sought is not available with him. The Appellant is requested to take note of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act which has defined 'information' as "any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advises, press releases, circulars, orders, log books, contracts, references, 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 law for the time being in force". The term Page 2 of 4 'information', as defined in the Act, thus refers to any material in any form and the various forms have been also defined in the Act. The information sought in his application by the Appellant is not as per this definition.
2. The Appellant is being further informed that as per the extant instructions, the CPIO is not required to gather information from various sources and create information and provide it to RTI Applicants. A citizen has a right to get 'material' from a public authority which is held by or under the control of that public authority. It means that the CPIO is required to supply the 'material' in the form as held by him, but not to do research on behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the material and then supply it to him. Also, the CPIO is not supposed to create information and supply it to the applicant.
3. Considering all the above aspects, the action taken by the CPIO is in accordance with the extant rules and the RTI application has been dealt with properly. No further action is called for on this appeal, which is disposed of accordingly.
4. In case you are not satisfied with the above reply, you may appeal within 90 days to the Central Information Commission."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 20.03.2025 has been received from the CPIO in both the cases, making submissions based on the response sent to the Applicant.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant/Complainant: Present Respondent: Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal - Consultant was present during hearing.
The Applicant contended that he is not satisfied with the information furnished to him and emphasises that atleast the initial query about the receipt of the specific letter lies with the Respondent and yet has not been answered.
The Respondent reiterated the contents of response and the written submission dated 20.03.2025 submitted in the case no. CIC/EOIBK/C/2024/607253 wherein it had been stated that: it is informed in reference to query (l) of RTI application that the Embassy did receive a letter like that attached by the petitioner with his RTI application Though the written submission has been duly marked to the Applicant, a copy of the same was also handed over by the representative for the Respondent during the course of hearing.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveals that the information available on record with the public authority and defined as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly provided to the Applicant. A copy of the written submission filed by the Respondent has also been provided to the Applicant during the course of hearing.
CIC/EOIBK/C/2024/607250 The Complainant has approached the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, wherein the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information.Page 3 of 4
Records of the case clearly indicate that the Respondent had sent responses based on information available on record with them, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case and hence no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is warranted in this case.
CIC/EOIBK/A/2024/607253 Since appropriate information has already been furnished in this case, no further intervention is warranted under the RTI Act.
Since the response of the PIO is appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, no intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The cases are disposed off on the above terms.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)