Central Information Commission
Deepak Sandhu vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 11 March, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/692744,
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/694699,
CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/694689 &
CIC/DOP&T/A/2021/602405
Deepak Sandhu ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Lokpal of India, RTI
Cell, Plot No. 6, Phase II,
Institutional Area, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi - 11070. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10/03/2022
Date of Decision : 10/03/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeals have been clubbed for decision as these are
based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
S.No File RTI CPIO First FAA Order Second
No. Application replied on Appeal dated Appeal
1
filed on filed on filed on
1. 692744 14.09.2020 12.10.2020 12.10.2020 17.11.2020 Nil
2. 694699 16.10.2020 28.10.2020 28.10.2020 03.12.2020 Nil
3. 694689 14.10.2020 27.10.2020 27.11.2020 03.12.2020 Nil
4. 602405 10.12.2020 06.01.2021 06.01.2021 28.01.2021 Nil
CIC/DOP&T/A2020/692744
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.09.2020 seeking the following information:
"Provide me the following facts with regard to complaint number 21 of the year 2020 in which evidences enclosed as annexure P 07 Information by Statement of Minister in the Lok Sabha and before Press Information Bureau P 14 Information gathered under RTI Act 2005 by Sports Authority of India and Information gathered under RTI Act 2005 from Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports and P 26 and P 28 Information gathered from SAI after inspection of Central Information Commission orders apparently showing huge disparities in releasing worth rupees hundreds of crores for the financial years 2014 15 and 2015 16 regarding the number of National Sports Federations by MYAS and SAI and similarly glaring contradictions conspicuously reflecting in total number of dope samples collected by National Anti Doping Agency New Delhi and in response of those collected dope samples, testing done by National Dope Testing Laboratory, New Delhi for the years 2015 and 2016 and by comparison of annexure no P 15 P 16 P 17 P 22 and P 28 respectively conclusively showing a blatant misuse of public funds, corruption and major loss caused to the State Exchequer as well and even CIC twice suspected corruption there Whereas, Lokpal in its decision dated September 8th 2020 vide order number C 12016 21 2020 Lokpal 1117 mentioned in last paragraph that the complainant has riot furnished any evidence in support of allegations pertaining to misuse of public funds, corruption and Foss caused to the State Exchequer despite of the fact that Lokpal in the same and earlier paragraph of its decision officially admitted that there appears to be some discrepancy and inconsistency in the data and information provided to the complainant by different - different authorities under RTI Act 2005 2 Therefore provide me under RTI Act 2005 as I have firm ground to get acquainted about following facts
1. Certified copies of the DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES on the basis of those, Lokpal concluded the aforesaid citation that the complainants allegations not substantiated the corruption, misuse of public funds and loss caused to the State Exchequer, inspite of huge disparities reflecting worth rupees hundreds of crores in releasing Grants in Aid to number of NSFs by MYAS and SAI for the FY 2014
2. Certified copy of the name of investigation agency did the investigation in my complaint alongwith name and designation of investigating officers who did the investigation in the matter
3. Certified copies of the legal definition with illustrations for following words and terms used by the Lokpal in its verdict a Corruption b Misuse of Public Funds c Loss caused to the State Exchequer ."
The CPIO furnished point wise reply to the appellant on 12.10.2020 stated as follows:-
Point No. Reply 1 No such document is available. Point No. 02 No investigation was ordered by the Bench. Point No. 03 Such definitions/queries are not covered or provided under the RTI Act 2005.
2. Under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 the public authority, under the Act, is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to questions/queries. Only such information can be provided under the Act, which already exists with the public authority.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.10.2020. FAA's order dated 17.11.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
3CIC/DOP&T/A2020/694699 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.10.2020 seeking the following information:
1. Certified copy of the exact figure in term of Indian rupees regarding Grant in Aid w. r. t individual National Sports Federation found inconsistent" to Lokpal while deciding the corruption complaint vide no 21 order vide No. -C- 12016/212020-Lokpa1/1117 dated 08/09/2020.
2. Certified copy of the exact figure in term of Dope Samples wit. individual National Sports Federations found "Inconsistent" to the Lokpal while deciding the corruption complaint vide no. 21 order vide No. -C- 12016/212020-Lokpa1/1117 dated 08/09/2020.
3. Certified copy of the legal definition for the term Inconsistent as used by the Lokpal in its aforesaid order.
4. Certified copy of the legal definition of the term "Misappropriates "' / "Misappropriation of funds" mentioned elsewhere in the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and its amendment till date. (with illustrations).
As the matter of the fact, it is apparently written / stated by the Lokpal in the said order in second last paragraph; "Prima facie, it appears that even there is some "Inconsistency" in the information provided to the complainant with regard to the Grants in Aid to various Sports Federations / Associations and in terms of number of tests done".
The CPIO informed the appellant on 28.10.2020 that:
".................complaint registered vide Complaint No. 21 was submitted to the Bench of Lokpal of India and the Bench after perusal of your complaint passed order dated 25.08.202D. A copy of which has already been forwarded to you vide letter No. C-12016121/2020-Lokpal dated 08.09.2020. No other information is available with this office which can be provided to satisfy your queries.
2. Under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 the public authority, under the Act, is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to questions/queries. Only such information can be provided under the Act, which already exists with the public authority."4
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.10.2020. FAA's order dated 03.12.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/DOP&T/A2020/694689 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.10.2020 seeking the following information:
1. "Certified copies of the documentary evidences on the basis of those the Lokpal concluded in vide no. -C-12016/212020-Lokpa1/1117 dated 8/9/20 w.r.t, complaint no. 21 that there is no evidence direct or direct, in support of his allegation of corruption in relation to the offences under the P & C Act. whereas, the enclosed PDF therewith apparently depicting that the documentary evidences provided by the complainant to Lokpal come very well under the sec.13 (P & C Act) Criminal misconduct by a public servant. As subsection 1 (c) & (d) of sec.13 conspicuously states that (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct.- (c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriate or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or (d) if her (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest That all the 87 accused alleged in my said complaint fall under the category of public servant carried out their public duty........"
The CPIO informed the appellant on 27.10.2020 that:
".................complaint registered vide Complaint No. 21 was submitted to the Bench of Lokpal of India and the Bench after perusal of your complaint passed order dated 25.08.2020. A copy of which has already been forwarded to you vide letter No. C-12016121/2020-Lokpal dated 08.09.2020. No other information is available with this office which can be provided to satisfy your queries.
2. Under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 the public authority, under the Act, is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to questions/queries. Only 5 such information can be provided under the Act, which already exists with the public authority."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.2020. FAA's order dated 03.12.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
CIC/DOP&T/A/2021/602405 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.12.2020 seeking the following information:
1."Certified copies of particular section (s) or subsection (s) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 under which my complaint no. 21 does not come as the Lokpal, India concluded in their verdict vide no. -C- 12016 / 21/2020- Lokpal /1117 dated 08/ 09/ 20 that "for the Lokpal of India to proceed in any matter, it is necessary that the complaint relates to an offence punishable under the Pretention of Corruption Act 1988.
2. Certified copy of the name and address of competent authority to deal with corruption matters (as Lokpal, India mentioned in its last paragraph of the aforesaid order that, "the complainant is at liberty to approach competent authority for the same") pertaining to departments comes under the purview of Union of India / Government of India where the complainant may file his Corruption complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988....."
The CPIO informed the appellant on 06.01.2021 that:
"..........under RTI Act 2005 an applicant can seek only that information which is available in the record of the concerned office. Questions and queries, the replies of which are not part of the record held by the concerned office, are not covered under the RTI Act 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.01.2021. FAA's order dated 28.01.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
6The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present. (Remained unavailable for audio conference) The Appellant reached out to the registry attached with this bench well beyond the scheduled time of hearing and was nonetheless heard by the bench thereafter wherein he requested that if there is any scope of relief, same may be ordered. Respondent: Awinash Chandra, US & CPIO present through audio conference.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant is aggrieved by a decision of the Lokpal on his Complaint and none of his queries seek information per se but has been duly replied to in all the above referred cases.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that concededly, none of the RTI Applications under reference conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, as the Appellant has sought for justifications by raising speculative and rhetorical queries to channelise his angst against the disposal of his complaint by the Lokpal.
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.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the 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.........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 7 opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer & Ors [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....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...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
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 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 8 authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, no action is warranted in the instant cases.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 9