Central Information Commission
Yashvir Singh vs Khadi & Village Industries Commission on 9 March, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/KVICO/A/2018/111302
Yashvir Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/O. MSME, Khadi & ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Village Industries Commission,
Mumbai-400056.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 12-06-2017 FA : 21-09-2017 SA : 20-02-2018
CPIO : 18-01-2018 FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 05-03-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), MSME, Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Mumbai seeking information on four points, including, inter-alia;
"1. From 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 how much material has been purchased by Khadi Gram Udyog Bhawan, Rimmal Building? Please provide complete description of the same, Page 1 of 7
2. From 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 how many times the Purchasing Committee has met with respect to purchase of the material? Please provide complete description of the same,
3. From 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 how many times the random testing of Khadi has been done and in which lab? Please provide complete description of the testing report, etc."
2. The CPIO provided point wise reply vide letter dated 18.01.2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 21.09.2017 asking to provide him with the requisite information. The first appeal 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 direct the respondent to provide the sought for information and also to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The appellant's representative, Shri Shiv Om Garg, attended the hearing in person. The respondent, Shri Krishan Pal, Assistant Director, MSME, Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Mumbai attended the hearing through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant submitted that the respondent, vide his reply dated 18.01.2018, has failed to provide complete description of the information sought vide point nos. 1-4 of his RTI application dated 12.06.2017. He further submitted that with respect to the information sought vide point no. 2, the respondent has not furnished the minutes of meeting of the Purchasing Committee. Further, on point no. 3, specific information has not been provided by the respondent with regards to the number of times the random testing of Khadi has been done and in which lab. The appellant submitted that the respondent has malafidely denied information on point no. 4 under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Vide point no. 4, the Page 2 of 7 appellant has sought the names of the organizations to whom the payments were made by Khadi Gram Udyog Bhawan, along with the copy of rules pertaining to the same, which, the appellant submitted, does not qualify for the exemption under Section 8(1)(j). He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information sought for.
5. The respondent submitted that point wise information, as available on records, has already been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 18.01.2018. He further submitted that with respect to the information sought vide point no. 2, the appellant has been provided with the date on which the Purchasing Committee met with respect to purchase of the material. Further, on point no. 3, the appellant has been informed that Khadi is purchased from certified organizations only, who conduct the testing of the material. The respondent further submitted that with respect to the information sought vide point no. 4, the names and details of organizations to whom the payment has been made is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the same being third party information. Thus, the appellant was informed accordingly. Furthermore, the respondent submitted that the description sought by the appellant is vague and non-specific. The appellant is expecting the CPIO to interpret all the documents available with the respondent, and furnish, as description, the documents relevant to the appellant queries. This, however, is outside the scope of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO is not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Hence, no further information remains to be provided to the appellant.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, agrees with the submissions of the respondent that by means of seeking description under point nos. 1-4, the appellant is expecting the CPIO to Page 3 of 7 interpret all the documents available with the respondent, and furnish the documents relevant to the appellant's RTI application. The Commission notes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. in SLP (C) 34868 of 2009 dated 04.01.2010, has 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."
7. "....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. A judge cannot be expected to give reasons other than those that have been enumerated in the judgment or order."
In the matter of CBSE & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) decision dated 09.08.2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"35......... 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 Page 4 of 7 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..............."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011] has held as under:
"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......."
7. The Commission, further, observes that the description sought by the appellant vide the above noted points is non-specific, and general in nature. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of The State Information Commissioner vs. Tushar Dhananjay Mandlekar (W.P. (C) No. 3818 of 2010) dated 30.07.2012 has observed:
"It is apparent from a reading of what is stated above that instead of seeking information on some specific issues, the respondent sought general information on scores of matters. The application is vague and the application does not make it clear to the Information Officer as to what information is actually sought by the respondent from the Officer. It was literally impossible for the appellants, as pointed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, to supply the entire information sought by the respondent to the respondent within a period of 30 days. The documents ran into 3419 pages............... We are clearly of the view in the aforesaid Page 5 of 7 backdrop that the application was filed with a mala fide intention and with a view to abuse the process of law."
8. In view of the above ratios, it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act.
9. The Commission, further, directs the respondent to provide minutes of meeting of the Purchasing Committee, with respect to the information sought vide point no. 2. The Commission, also, observes that a categorical reply has not been furnished to the appellant with respect to the information sought vide point no. 3. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide a revised reply, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, pertaining to the information sought vide point no. 3 of the RTI application in question, to the appellant.
10. With respect to the information sought vide point no. 4, the Commission observes that although the information pertaining to the details of the organization such as GST no., PAN no., TIN no. etc. are exempted from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI Act, the respondent shall, however, apprise the appellant regarding the payments made along with the identity of the organizations. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide a revised reply, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, including the name wise payments made to organizations by Khadi Gram Udyog Bhawan, along with the mention of rules, if any, available on records, to the appellant.
Page 6 of 711. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
12. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु मारगुप्ता) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयुक्त) दिनांक / Date:-06-03-2020 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमाग), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, M/O. MSME, Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, 3, IRLA Road, Ville Parle-West, Mumbai-400056, Maharashtra.
2. Mr. Yashvir Singh Page 7 of 7