Central Information Commission
Veeraswamy Nallajarla vs Bhabha Atomic Resarch Centre (Mumbai) on 18 August, 2021
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BARCM/A/2019/160428
Shri Veeraswamy Nallajarla ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (Mumbai) ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri Sriram S - CAO
Date of Hearing : 18.08.2021
Date of Decision : 18.08.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.06.2019
PIO replied on : 10.07.2019
First Appeal filed on : 05.08.2019
First Appellate Order on : 16.09.2019
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 13.12.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated13.06.2019 which was responded to by the CPIO vide letter dated 10.07.2019 as under:-Page 1 of 4
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.08.2019. The FAA/Controller vide order dated 16.09.2019 upheld the reply of the CPIO, stating that as per the Apex Court decision in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority to collect or collate information which is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO, BARC vide letter dated
02.08.2021, relevant extracts whereof are as under:
Page 2 of 4In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through video conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participate in the virtual hearing and Appellant contended that he seeks the information in larger public interest and in order to assess whether the huge funding which is granted to the Respondent organisation, is being utilised appropriately. He wanted to gather specific information about the projects undertaken by the Respondent which are likely to benefit the society at large.
Respondent placed reliance on the submissions dated 02.08.2021 stating that information as available and as are maintained in the regular course of business, have been sent to and receipt thereof has been duly acknowledged by the Appellant.
Decision Upon considering the records and averments put forth by the parties, the Commission notes that information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly provided by the Respondent. It is worthwhile to point out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its decision dated 09.08.2011 in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay [CIVIL APPEAL No. 6454 OF 2011] had held that:Page 3 of 4
"...35. .....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.
In the light of the above decision of the Apex Court, no legal infirmity is found in the response provided by the Respondent and the Commission upholds the stance adopted by the Respondent, which is in line with the spirit of the RTI Act.
Therefore, the appeal is disposed off with no further directions.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4