Central Information Commission
Gils P. S. vs Food Safety And Standard Authority Of ... on 1 July, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/FSSAI/A/2021/627082
Gils P. S. .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Assistant Director-(HR), Food Safety & Standards
Authority of India (Ministry of Health & Family Welfare),
H.R. Division, 3rd & 4th Floor, FDA Bhawan,
Kotla Road, New Delhi-110002.
2. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Assistant Director-(RTI/Admin), Food Safety &
Standards Authority of India (Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare), RTI & Administration Division,
3rd & 4th Floor, FDA Bhawan, Kotla Road,
New Delhi-110002.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.12.2020
CPIO replied on : 09.02.2021
First appeal filed on : 10.02.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 01.04.2021
Second Appeal received at CIC : 30.06.2021
Date of Hearing : 01.07.2022
Date of Decision : 01.07.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 8
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 09.02.2021, as under:Page 2 of 8
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 10.02.2021. The FAA vide order dated 01.04.2021 held that:
• Written submissions have been received from Appellant, vide letter dated 21.06.2022, as under:Page 3 of 8 Page 4 of 8
Etc. Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: present on VC Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jain, AD & PIO, present in person.Page 5 of 8
The Appellant reiterated the factual matrix of his case and stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. He further stated his dissatisfaction with regards to para(s) 6, 7 & 8 of the instant RTI Application.
The PIO submitted that initially reply was provided to the appellant on 09.02.2021 and upon receipt of Commissions hearing notice a revised reply on para 7 & 8 was sent to the Appellant on 28.06.2022. He further submitted that whatever information was available on record has been provided to the Appellant. he furthermore affirmed that he would abide by the orders of the Commission if any in the instant matter.
Decision Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appellant is seeking information with regards to appointment and pay structure of technical officers working on a contractual basis. In response to that PIO has provided point wise information to the appellant on 09.02.2021. However, appellant is not satisfied with the same and arguments raised by him in lieu of it is more inclined towards seeking clarifications from the respondent authority.
In view of the foregoing, Commission remarks that Section 2(f) of the RTI Act provides for the PIO to provide such information which 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 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;
Further, Section 2(j) of the RTI Act enumerates that "right to information" means "the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;.."
Page 6 of 8As much as the PIO has a statutory duty to respond to RTI Applications as per the provisions of the RTI Act, a RTI Applicant also must adhere to the same provisions while seeking information under the Act.
In view of aforesaid observations, it will be suffice to say that the nature of relief sought by the appellant is merely to seek clarification from the PIO which is outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, PIO is not supposed to create information or interpret information in respect of queries/clarifications. Redressal of grievance, noncompliance of rules, contesting the actions of respondent public authority and suggesting correction in government policies are outside the purview of the RTI Act.
Further, the Commission deems it expedient to remark that under the RTI Act the CPIO can only provide information which is available in the record. Thus, the appellant cannot expect the respondent to take certain action or initiate action as desired by him. In view of the foregoing, Commission deems it expedient to highlight that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011] has held as under:
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."
Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 09.08.2011 in the matter of CBSE &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay&ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) has held as under:
"35......... 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 view of the above, the Commission notes that an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant by the respondent.
Page 7 of 8Further, Commission directs the PIO to furnish the copy of the letter dated 28.06.2022 to the Appellant, free of cost, via speed post and/or Email, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the said PIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 8 of 8