Central Information Commission
Divye Chugh vs Department Of Telecommunications on 17 August, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/DOTEL/A/2022/134986
Divye Chugh .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
O/o. the Director-(DS-III), Ministry of Communications,
Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhawan,
20--Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Office of the Director-(CS-II), Ministry of Communications,
Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar
Bhawan, 20--Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.03.2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 25.04.2022
First Appellate Authority order : 02.05.2022
Second Appeal received at CIC : 26.07.2022
Date of Hearing : 17.08.2023
Date of Decision : 17.08.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
• Dissatisfied with no response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 25.04.2022.
• PIO/SO, RTI Section DoT forwarded the instant RTI Application to CPIO/Director (CS-II), DoT and CPIO/Director (DS-III), DoT, vide office memorandum dated 23.05.2022 and 24.05.2022 respectively.
• PIO, Director, DS-III, DoT has furnished reply dated 11.03.2022, as under:Page 2 of 6
• FAA, DS-III, DoT vide order dated 02.05.2022 held as under :
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO/Director (CS-II), DoT vide letter dated 25.07.2023, as under :
• Written submission has been received from the Director (DS-III)/CPIO vide letter dated 14.08.2023 as under :Page 3 of 6
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Mr. Vipin T.P.- Authorised Representative Respondent: 1. Mr. Brahamanada Srivastavm Director, CS-II
2. Mr. Umesh Khamani. Director, DS-III The Authorised Representative of the Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished till date. He further stated that in the instant RTI Application the Appellant has sought information with respect to guidelines, rules and regulations for landing of submarine optical fibre cable. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish the information as sought.
CPIO/Director, CS-II, DoT reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the subject matter relating to which information has been sought does not pertain to their CS-II section.
CPIO/Director, DS-III, DoT, stated that the similar information has been sought by the Appellant earlier also and reply has been furnished to the Appellant in relation to his previous RTI Applications and First Appeal. He further stated that the information sought in the instant RTI Application does not pertain to DS-III, DoT and copy of instant RTI Application has been forwarded to CPIO/Director CS-III. He further stated that the queries raised by the RTI Application does not conform to the definition of "information" as per section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Furthermore, the relevant link with respect to guidelines, rules and regulations for landing of submarine optical fibre cable has already been furnished to the Appellant in reply to his earlier RTI Applications.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIOs to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.Page 4 of 6
Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the information sought in the instant RTI Application do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as the Appellant has sought clarifications/inferences from the CPIO. In this regard, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
A reference in this regard is made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was 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. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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."
In view of foregoing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent since only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seekers and giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. Furthermore, the PIO has also furnished relevant link with respect to guidelines, rules and regulations for landing of submarine optical fibre cable to the Page 5 of 6 Appellant in reply to earlier RTI Application of the Appellant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 6 of 6