Central Information Commission
Anita Rani vs Bhakra Beas Management Board on 7 September, 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/BBMBD/A/2021/129894
Anita Rani ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Board Secretariat, BBMB,
RTI Cell, Central Marg,
Sector 19-B, Chandigarh- 160019 .... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/09/2022
Date of Decision : 06/09/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01/03/2021
CPIO replied on : 16/03/2021
First appeal filed on : 06/04/2021
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19/07/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.03.2021 seeking the following information:
1. "The copy of relevant Order, Circular, Noting, Minutes of the meeting wherein the 85th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001 has been adopted and made applicable to BBMB employees.1
2. The copy of relevant Order, Circular, Noting Minutes of the meeting wherein the Central Government Rules & Notification have been adopted in the BBMB.
3. What are the rules of promotion and Reservation applicable on the SC & ST BBMB employees. The relevant Rules Notification, Circular may kindly be provided."
The CPIO furnished a point wise to the appellant on 16.03.2021 stating as follows:-
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.04.2021. FAA's order dated 05.05.2021 held as under.
"............In case you are not satisfied with the supplied information, you can visit in the office of Joint Secretary/MIS, BBMB, Sector-19-B, Chandigarh on any working day from 10.00 Am to 4.00 PM with prior intimation and can check the record of the related information within 15 days from the date of issuance of this letter. If you failed to attend the aforesaid office within the stipulated period, appeal will be disposed-of accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Anil Dhawan, Deputy Director CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that she has asked for simple information yet on point no.1 of the RTI Application no inputs have been received, while for point no.2, the information that has been provided is something which is already available on the website but there ought to be some agenda, noting(s), minutes related to 2 adopting the 85th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001. Similarly, for point no.3 she was informed that the head of department will provide the information but till date nothing has been heard in this regard.
The CPIO submitted at the outset that the Appellant has wrongly alleged in her Appeal that a timely reply was not provided to her even as the reply was provided to her on 16.03.2021 itself. He further submitted that even the FAA offered her an opportunity of inspection of records and she was located barely a kilometre away from their office, yet she did not avail of the same.
The Appellant argued that by the contention of not receiving timely reply she had meant that correspondences sent subsequent to the CPIO's reply to various authorities went unanswered until May, 2021 when she was offered an inspection of records by the FAA.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes at the outset that the information sought for in the RTI Application is not very specific and does not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the request to provide "relevant" "Order, Circular, Noting, Minutes" requires the CPIO to interpret and deduce information from available records. In other words, the CPIO has to first find out which record the Appellant is referring to be able to deduce the "relevant" part thereof. Even during the hearing, the Appellant has expressed that it is her belief that such and such board agenda/minutes ought to exist. 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. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(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;.."3
In this regard, the Appellant's 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 washeld 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 opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the CPIO & FAA have attempted to facilitate the Appellant with the available information and the Commission finds no infirmity in their action.
In pursuance of the hearing proceedings, to allay the apprehensions of the Appellant, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide another opportunity of inspection of the available records relevant to the information sought for in the instant RTI Application to the Appellant on a mutually decided date & time within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The intimation of date & time of the inspection shall be provided to the Appellant by the CPIO telephonically and in writing. Copy of documents, if any desired by the Appellant shall be provided free of cost upto 50 pages and beyond that, prescribed fees may be charged as per RTI Rules, 2012. A compliance report to this effect shall be sent to the Commission by the CPIO immediately thereafter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5