Central Information Commission
Akhil Anil Mody vs National Consumer Disputes Redressal ... on 29 October, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/NCDRC/A/2020/664951
Mr. Akhil Anil Mody ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Upbhokta
Nyay Bhawan, F-Block, GPO
Complex, INA, New Delhi-110023
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 02-08-2019 FA : 21-09-2019 SA : 03-03-2020
CPIO : Not on Record FAO Not on Record Hearing: 26-10-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) National Consumer Disputes Redressal, INA, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
1. "Complete details of all action taken by this commission against the application dt. 11-07-2019 of the respondent in the revision proceedings.
2. If no action has been taken by this commission against the application dt. 11-07-2019 of the respondent in the revision proceedings u/s 4(1)(d) RTI Act complete reasons for this commission failing to take any action against the aforesaid application.Page 1 of 4
3. Next date fixed for hearing in the revision proceedings in place of the NULL & VOID date 06-11-2019 fixed."
2. No reply of CPIO is placed on records. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 21-09-2019 on the ground of deemed refusal of information and requested that information should be provided to him. No reply of FAO is placed on records. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant did not attend the hearing despite being served the hearing notice. The respondent, Ms. Durga Devi, Nodal CPIO/ Ass. Registrar attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 18.10.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 29.09.2019, they have informed the appellant that w.r.t the information sought at point no. 1 of the RTI Application, "no action administrative or vigilance is taken against the officer." That w.r.t the information sought at point no. 2 of the RTI Application, it has been informed that "as per records, the application dated 11.07.2019 received on 18.07.2019 could not be placed before the Hon'ble Bench of the National Commission on 06.11.2019 and matter was adjourned to 12.03.2020 and thereafter from time to time adjourned due to Covid-19. Now as per the last proceedings dated 07.08.2020, the matter is coming up for hearing before the Hon'ble Bench of the National Commission on 20.10.2020. However, now the application dated 11.07.2019 has already been placed in the concerned file i.e. R. P. No. 3843/2017 and therefore, complete Revision Petition file including the application dated 11.07.2019 will be placed before the Hon'ble Bench of the National Commission on the next date of hearing. The Applicant/ Respondent may submit his arguments/ grievances before the Hon'ble Bench of the National Commission on the next date of hearing. The matter is still subjudice before the Hon'ble Commission." That w.r.t the information sought at point no. 3 of the RTI Application, it has been informed to the appellant that "as per Section 57 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 "The officers and other employees of the National Commission shall discharge their functions under the general Page 2 of 4 superintendence of the President of the National Commission." Therefore, the relevant reply has already been provided to the appellant as per their available records.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought complete details of all action taken by the respondent against the application dated 11-07-2019 in the revision petition bearing no. 3843/2017 and other related queries. The Commission observes that the appellant is seeking clarifications based on records and not seeking any information which exists in material form. That queries related to clarifications are not maintainable under the RTI Act, still the respondent has provided point-wise reply to the appellant by going beyond the scope of the RTI Act. It has been observed that the CPIO is not supposed 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 appellant. 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.Page 3 of 4
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."
8. In view of the above ratio, the Commission is of the opinion that the respondent has provided point-wise reply dated 29.09.2019 to the instant RTI Application by going beyond the scope of the RTI Act, clarifications has also been provided to the appellant, the same is taken on record and hence no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 26-10-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस#यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Upbhokta Nyay Bhawan, F-Block, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi-110023
2. Mr. Akhil Anil Mody Page 4 of 4