Central Information Commission
A. K. Malik vs Delhi Fire Services on 27 May, 2022
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/DLFSR/A/2021/608561
A. K. Malik .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Office of the Director, Delhi Fire Service-HQ
(Government of NCT of Delhi),
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Administration/RTI Branch, Delhi Fire
Service-HQ (Government of NCT of Delhi),
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.12.2020
CPIO replied on : 13.01.2021
First appeal filed on : 21.01.2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Second Appeal received at CIC : 10.03.2021
Date of Hearing : 27.05.2022
Date of Decision : 27.05.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 7
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
• PIO, DFS-HQ, furnished reply, vide letter dated 13.01.2021, as under:
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 21.01.2021.Page 2 of 7
• Written submissions have been received from PIO, DFS-HQ, vide letter dated 23.05.2022, as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 3 of 7
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present.
Respondent: Mr. Mukesh Verma, PIO, DFS, present.
Appellant stated that relevant information, with regards to instant RTI Application, has not been furnished to him in the instant matter. He further requested the Commission that complete information be furnished to him.
PIO submitted that he has already furnished relevant reply, vide letter dated 13.01.2021, to the Appellant. He further submitted that he would abide by the orders of Commission, if any.
Upon Commission's instance, Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the afore-mentioned reply furnished by concerned PIO as no charter duties of employees of DFS were furnished to him.
PIO submitted that he is not aware whether documented duties of employees, as sought in RTI Application, exist on record.
Decision:
At the outset, The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes"Page 4 of 7
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held asunder:
35..... "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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in KhanapuramGandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
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 Page 5 of 7 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."
The Commission observed that a database of the details of the charter of duties of employees is not maintained by Delhi Fire Services which should have been suo-moto be disclosed on their website so that it could promote transparency and accountability within the department and leads to its better functioning. It shall also ensure smooth facilitation of information to all concerned. In this context, the Commission felt that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."Page 6 of 7
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16. It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use ofthe RTI Act to obtain the information."
Therefore, in lieu of afore-mentioned observations, Commission directs the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised reply, with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO. No further action lies.
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 7 of 7