Central Information Commission
Shishir Gupta vs Reserve Bank Of India on 26 May, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2020/684630
Mr. Shishir Gupta ...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondent
Reserve Bank of India
Central Office Mumbai, New Central
Office Building, SBS Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400001
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 08-08-2019 FA : Not on Record Complaint: 08-09-2020
CPIO : 06-09-2019 FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 19-05-2022
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai. The appellant seeking information on various points including inter-alia is as under:-
etc Page 1 of 8
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 06-09-2019 reply is as under "No information has been sought, information sought is not clear. No first appeal is placed on record. No reply of FAO is placed on record. The complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The complainant was not present despite notice. The respondent, Shri Nayeem Akhtar, Legal Officer along with Ms. Anitha Venugopalan, Manager attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The written submissions of the respondent are taken on record.
5. The respondent, during the hearing, reiterated the reply given by the CPIO vide letter dated 06.09.2019 and submitted that point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the complainant on his RTI application. The respondent stated that the queries of the complainant are more in the nature of raising grievance and expects that his grievance should be redressed through the mode of filing RTI application. He further submitted that the queries of the complainant is in the nature of seeking opinion/clarification from the CPIO but the CPIO is not expected to give opinion/advice under the ambit of the RTI Act.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the queries of the complainant are in the nature of seeking clarifications/explanation/opinion/advice from the CPIO viz. "CPIO RBI while responding to the RTI application no. dated has categorically responded that no separate instructions have been issued by RBI for granting permission for property to be acquired on FCFS basis. Extract/screenshot of the CPIO response is attached at Annexure B, etc." and he has expected that the CPIO firstly should analyze/ examine the documents and then provide information to the complainant. That the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided w.r.t the information sought in his RTI application. That in these points, it is not clear that exactly what information has been sought by the complainant and this requires the CPIO to interpret the relevant documents on record and provide the requested information as desired by the complainant. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information;
Page 2 of 8or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the applicant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
7. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 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."
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making 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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah 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 Page 3 of 8 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 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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:
"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 authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
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 Page 4 of 8 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 authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
8. As regards the grievance raised by the complainant with respect to acquisition of DDA flat no. A 1 334 under DDA Scheme under first cum first served basis and rejection of this permission, etc., this Commission further observes that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/right to information and not to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna v. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal v. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 has held that the RTI Act, 2005 is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes. Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in Review Petition [C] No.2309 OF 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No.210 of 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Namit Sharma, Review Petition [C] No. 2675 of 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No. 210 of 2012 has held as under:-
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors., LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:-
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to Page 5 of 8 what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Govt. of NCT v. Rajendra Prasad, WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017 has held as under:-
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the W.P.(C) 10676/2016 Page 4 of 5 powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was:
(i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
9. This Commission further observes that while examining the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12- 12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The Page 6 of 8 only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.
37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
10. In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that the respondent has already provided adequate reply to the above RTI Application well within stipulated time-frame. That since it's a complaint, the adequacy of information cannot be adjudicated. If the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent, he could have approached the Commission by filing Second Appeal. Prima facie there is no malafide intention of obstructing the information to the complainant, hence no action warranted under section 20 of the RTI Act.
11. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 19-05-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 7 of 8
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Reserve Bank of India
Central Office Mumbai,
New Central Office Building,
SBS Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001
2. Mr. Shishir Gupta
Page 8 of 8