Central Information Commission
Ravinder Kamboj vs High Commission Of India,Islamabad, ... on 24 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/HCIPK/A/2018/623316
Ravinder Kamboj ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/o. External Affairs, New ... ितवादी/Respondent
Delhi-110011
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 17-03-2018 FA : 18-04-2018 SA:14-06-2018
CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record Hearing: 20-03-2020
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:-
"Total no. of complaints received by different offices of the Hon'ble High Commission of India, Islamabad from the Indian citizens/officials against the Pakistani citizens/officials including, inter-alia, action taken on such complaints."
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information within a period of 30 days, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 18-04-2018 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 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Ravinder Kamboj did not attend the hearing. Ms. Deepa Jain, US(RTI) and Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, RTI Consultant participated in Page 1 of 4 the hearing representing the respondent in person. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant is not readily available and it requires compilation. Decision:
5. This Commission observes that if the required information was not maintained in the manner as asked for, the CPIO could not be asked to compile such data. It is further observed that the CPIO is expected to provide the information which is available with him. He is not required to collect and compile the information on the demand of a requester nor is he expected to create a fresh one merely because someone has asked for it. This is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04-12-2014 in W.P.(C) 6634/2011 & CM No.13398/2011 titled as The Registrar, Supreme Court Of India v. Commodore Lokesh K.Batra and Ors., wherein, it was observed as follows:-
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant. The Supreme Court in Aditya Bandhopadhyay (supra) held as under:-
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of "information" and "right to information" under clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant."Page 2 of 4
6. Further, this Commission observes that the CPIO cannot be expected to compile the information which requires disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority. On this aspect, it is apt to mention the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 dated 09/08/2011 titled as Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., wherein, it was observed as under:-
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. 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 20-03-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 3 of 4
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. Ravinder Kamboj
Page 4 of 4