Central Information Commission
Gunakara Giri vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 7 February, 2023
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
File No : CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/603114
Gunakara Giri ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Establishment A-IV, RTI Cell,
North Block, New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/02/2023
Date of Decision : 06/02/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 08/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 12/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 27/12/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 04/01/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.11.2021 seeking the following information:
"1. Kindly provide me the information as asked in paragraph 3 of this communication under RTI Act.
2. I had submitted a LTC claim to Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, Pune within sixty days of completion of my journey which was perfectly in order as per 1 rule 292 of GFR-2017. But my claim has been rejected by office of Principal Controller of Defence Accounts on the ground that the policy issued by DoPT regarding time limit in submission of LTC claim is final in supersession of rule 292 of GFR 2017.
3. It is requested to forward a copy of order/OM/letter/direction of your department under which rule 292 of GFR-2017 has been superseded.
4. Kindly forward the above information within the stipulated period and also forward the details of appellate authority for my further action, if required."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 08.12.2021 stating as under:-
"It is informed that orders on LTC are available in public domain on the website of this Department at dopt.gov.in --------- Notifications under 'OM & Orders'---------- Establishment--------LTC Rules. The Central Civil Services (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988 are also available on the website under dopt.gov.in --------Download---
-----'Acts & Rules'.
Please note as per RTI Act, CPIO is not required to give any clarification, opinion, views or comments on any subject or reply to situational questions. The CPIO is required to provide information as available with him in the form of O.M., Notifications, rules, regulations, orders, letters and circulars etc. Queries/clarification or interpretation of information is outside the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2021. FAA's order dated 27.12.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Satish Kumar, US & CPIO present through intra-video conference.2
The CPIO submitted that adequate clarification has been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that considering the nature of the queries raised by the Appellant in the RTI Application, the CPIO's reply is deemed more than adequate in as much as the Appellant has not sought for any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and 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 penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(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;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it washeld 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 `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) 3 Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
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." (Emphasis Supplied) 4 Having observed as above, no relief can be ordered in the matter. The Appellant is advised to pursue his grievance through appropriate channel.
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 / 5