Central Information Commission
Raghav Singhal vs Ministry Of Road Transport & Highways on 6 January, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
Files No : CIC/MORTH/A/2020/119727 &
CIC/MORTH/C/2020/119726
Raghav Singhal .......अपीलकता/Appellant
....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
M/o Road Transport & Highways,
RTI Cell, Transport Bhawan,
1 Parliament Street,
New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 05/01/2022
Date of Decision : 05/01/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred Appeal/Complaint have been clubbed for decision as
these are based on the same RTI Application.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal/complaint:
RTI application filed on : 24/02/2020 & 24/02/2020
CPIO replied on : Not on record & Not on record
First appeal filed on : NIL & 21/04/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record & Not on record
1
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26/06/2020 & 26/06/2020
CIC/MORTH/A/2020/119727 &
CIC/MORTH/C/2020/119726
Information sought:
The Appellant/Complainant filed an online RTI application dated 24.02.2020 seeking the following information;
" I, for my organization Claims Bureau, had applied for login ID creation for the national Transport Portal but till now, ministry has not provided the login details of the same for accessing data of national register. Kindly reply to the following-
1. Why haven't the login details provided for accessing data of national register?
2. What states have not yet been part of national register?
3. For victims of 3rd party accidents, why haven't the ministry made a separate portal for accessing data of tortfeasors?
4. What are the login details for my organization?
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant/complainant filed a First Appeal(s) dated Nil and 21.04.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant/complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal and Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant/Complainant: Present through audio-conference. Respondent: S. K. Geeva, U.S. & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Appellant/Complainant while narrating the factual contents of his RTI Application expressed his dissatisfaction to the fact that his application for creation of login ID under National Transport Portal was neither rejected nor accepted by the Respondent office.2
The CPIO relied on the written submission dated 04.01.2022 and submitted that reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant/Complainant on 18.09.2020. Further, in response to Appellant's/Complainant's contention, he explained that his application for the login id was filed in the middle of Feb of 2020 i.e. at the initial stage of COVID- 19 era and towards the beginning of immediate nationwide first lock down thereafter which led to non-processing of his said application. He further tendered his unconditional regret for the delay in giving a timely reply and attributed the reasons for the same to be challenging circumstances arising out of COVID 19 .
Decision:
At the outset, the Commission after considering the submissions of the CPIO hereby condones the delay in providing a reply beyond the stipulated time frame of RTI Act.
Further, the Commission observes from a perusal of records that the information sought by the Appellant/Complainant through the instant RTI Application does not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as he has sought clarification and explanation from the CPIO based on his grievance regarding non-issuance of login-id against his application; yet the CPIO in his wisdom has provided relevant information to the Appellant/Complainant which is in the spirit of RTI Act.
The Appellant/Complainant may note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions, inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to the penal provisions of the RTI Act. It will be relevant here to cite a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay&Ors[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was 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............ 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 3 `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) In view of the aforesaid, no further action is warranted in the matter.
However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant/Complainant and advises the CPIO to facilitate due assistance to him in issuing login id under National Transport Portal as per the extant norms.
The appeal/complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4