Central Information Commission
Lokanath Mahapatra vs Ministry Of Steel on 24 June, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
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/MOSTL/A/2019/105522
Lokanath Mahapatra ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. The CPIO, M/o Steel, (BLA ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Cell), Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The CPIO, M/o Steel, (RINL),
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 11-10-2018 FA : 13-11-2018 SA : 07-02-2019
CPIO : 18-10-2018 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 18-06-2020
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 Steel, New Delhi seeking following information w.r.t. Rastriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL):-
"1. (i) Which Director had assumed additional charge of Director (Operations) in August 2017 after retirement of the then Director (Operations) Mr. D N Rao on 31st July 2017. Please enclose the certified copies of order, approval note by Ministry with enclosures and the relevant guidelines followed.
(ii) Who was the senior most Director then with technical qualification/ background and reasons recorded for denial to him the post of D(O) on 01-08-2017?
2. (i) Which Director had assumed charge for the post of CMD on 1st June 2018 after retirement of the then CMD, Mr. Madhusudhan on 31st May 2018. Please enclose the certified copies of order, Page 1 of 5 approval note with enclosures by Ministry and the relevant guidelines followed.
(ii) Who was the senior most Director then and reasons recorded for denial to him the post of CMD on 01-06-2018?
3. Are the officers/executives of RINL Public servants? If yes, please enclose certified copies of relevant guidelines/orders.
4. This is related to CBI inquiry on employment based on Rehabilitation Identity Cards (R-Cards) in VSP, RINL in 2017.
(i) What was the source of complaint?
(ii)When did MoS receive CBI investigation/inquiry/self-
contained note on the above issue?
etc."
2. The CPIO responded on 18-10-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 13-11-2018 which was not disposed of by the first appellate authority. 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, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Lokanath Mahapatra attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. H. M. Sehgal, DGM participated in the hearing representing the respondent(s) through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant limited his submissions to point nos. 3 and 4 of the RTI application and further stated that no information has been provided to him on these points till date. On point no. 4, he stated that the information pertains to certain allegations of corruption and therefore, this information should be provided to him.
5. The respondent(s) submitted that the query raised by the appellant on point no. 3 is clarificatory in nature and therefore, it is not covered u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In respect of point no. 4, he informed the Commission that the matter is still being investigated by the CBI and no final decision has been taken so far. Therefore, they could not provide the information to the appellant on point no. 4 of the RTI application. In this regard, they have given a reply to the appellant vide their letter dated 18-05-2020. The given reply was also read out by the respondent.Page 2 of 5
Decision:
6. This Commission observes that the query raised by the appellant on point no. 3 of the RTI application is akin to seeking clarification from the CPIO regarding the nature of service rendered by the officers/executives of the RINL.
Therefore, this sort of query is 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 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 Page 3 of 5 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 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."
7. On point no. 4, the respondent(s) have apprised this Commission that the matter is still being investigated by the CBI and no final decision has been taken by the competent authority till date. Therefore, the information on point no. 4 cannot be provided to the appellant during the ongoing CBI investigation. It is to be noted the CBI is seized of the matter which has been placed at Serial No. 23 of the 2nd Schedule r/w Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, and as such the RTI Act, 2005 is not applicable to this organization except in the case of corruption and human rights violations. The appellant has also not established any element of corruption and human rights violations in the matter. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
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 (नीरज कु मार गुप्ता) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 18-06-2020 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) 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 Steel, Under Secretary & Nodal CPIO, (BLA Cell), Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
2. The CPIO, M/o Steel, Under Secretary & Nodal CPIO, (RINL), Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011.
3. Mr. Lokanath Mahapatra, Page 5 of 5