Central Information Commission
Maninder Singh Litt vs Ministry Of Personnel, Public ... on 3 February, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MPERS/A/2019/101330
Maninder Singh Litt अपीलकता /Appellant
....अपीलकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances & Pensions,(DOPT)
North Block, New Delhi-110001 ितवादीगण /Respondent
...
Date of Hearing : 02/02/2021
Date of Decision : 02/02/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23/07/2018
CPIO replied on : 22/10/2018
First appeal filed on : 07/09/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 10/10/2018
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05/01/2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 23.07.2018 seeking information on four points which is as under:-
a. "Provision of revision of the orders for waiving off the interim compensation once awarded (by the same Information Commissioner) during the pendency of the same Appeal Case. (stating the situation and procedure for the orders, if any).
b. Provision of Revision of its own order by the Information Commission, if any.
c. The Higher Authority where a Revision against the orders of the Information Commission can be filed.
d. If any of the above is not provided, then a nil report with the reasons thereof may kindly be provided."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.09.2018. FAA's order dated 10.10.2018 directed the CPIO to furnish reply to the applicant immediately.
In compliance with the FAA's order, Shri Sanjay Kumar CPIO & Under Secretary furnished point wise information to the appellant on 22.10.2018 that is:-
"Point no. (a-c):- As per section 19(7) of the RTI Act, 2005, the decision of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall be binding. Further, no other information is available to the undersigned.
Point no (d):- Only such information can be supplied under the RTI Act, 2005 that is available and existing, and is held by the public authority. The PIO is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inference and/or making assumptions as to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants or to furnish replied to hypothetical questions."
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Represented by Rajinder Singh Litt through video-conference. Respondent: Pawan Kumar, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Rep. of the Appellant stated that the reply of the CPIO is not satisfactory as the same is not point-wise and categorical.
The CPIO submitted that a clear and specific reply has been provided to the RTI Application indicating therein ,inter alia, that under the mandate of the RTI Act, only such information can be provided which is available and existing.
Upon a query from the Commission regarding the delay in replying to the RTI Application, the CPIO tendered unconditional regret and submitted that the then CPIO was on medical leave for 6 months at the relevant time, therefore the RTI Application could not be replied to.
Decision The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record that concededly, the information sought for in the RTI Application does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has sought for the deduction of certain provisions of the RTI Act by the CPIO. The Appellant may note certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act as under:
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011] 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." (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:
"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....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) In keeping with the aforesaid dicta, the CPIO has provided adequate clarifications through a composite reply for three paras (paras a-c) and a separate reply for the fourth para (para d) of the RTI Application, and the same is deemed as a point-wise reply. The delay in providing the reply to the RTI Application is also condoned as no malafide intention can be ascribed to the CPIO based on the material on record.
In view of the foregoing observations, no action is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date