Central Information Commission
C G Subramoniam vs Madras Fertilizer Ltd.(Mfl) on 13 November, 2018
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/MFLTD/A/2017/156123-BJ
Mr. C G Subramoniam
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Madras Fertilizers Limited
Post Box No 2, Manali
Chennai - 600068
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.11.2018
Date of Decision : 13.11.2018
Date of RTI application 06.02.2017
CPIO's response 26.05.2017 and
10.07.2017
Date of the First Appeal 19.06.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 14.08.2017
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 15 points regarding the scheduled working. Duty time of the various categories of employees working in the company in all divisions especially the marketing division, whether the employees were allowed to work at home as in the case of IT professionals on all days, categorisation of employees in the company, their pay band/ scale, working days for an employee and issues related thereto. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 26.05.2017 provided a response on points 01 to 04 of the RTI application. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 10.07.2017 responded to the First Appeal and answered the remaining points of the RTI application.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;Page 1 of 3
Respondent: Mr. Mohamed Eshak, Mgr. (OL) / RTI through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Ems, Network Engineer NIC studio at Ernakulam confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent informed the Commission that the queries raised by the Appellant were evasive and ambiguous in nature. Nonetheless, the basic details containing the administrative structure of the company were already displayed on its website. Furthermore, the CPIO had responded suitably in the matter.
The Commission referred 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 was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), 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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
Page 2 of 37. "....the 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."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests. DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 13.11.2018
Page 3 of 3