Central Information Commission
T. V. Sundaresan vs Parliment Of India on 30 November, 2021
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
ि तीय अपील सं ा/Second Appeal No(s)/ िशकायत सं या/ Complaint No.
CIC/LOKSS/A/2020/667245,CIC/PAROI/A/2020/667276,CIC/DOFPD/A/2020
/668385,CIC/MOFPI/A/2020/668397 & CIC/MOFPI/C/2020/668398
Mr. T.V. Sundaresan ... अपीलकता /Appellant
...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondents
Parliament of India
Lok Sabha Secretariat
Parliament House Annexe
New Delhi-110001
CPIO
M/o. Consumer Affairs, Food & Public
Distribution, Dept. of Food & Public
Distribution, Krishi Bhawan
New Delhi-110001
CPIO
M/o. Food Processing Industries
Panchsheel Bhawan, August Kranti Marg,
New Delhi-110049
CPIO
Parliament of India
Rajya Sabha Secretariat
Parliament House Annexe
New Delhi-110001
CPIO
M/o. Heavy Industries & Public
Enterprises, Department of Heavy
Industry, Enterprises Bhawan
Block-14, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
Relevant dates emerging from the appeals/ complaint:-
Page 1 of 12
SA : 31-03-
RTI : 02-09-2018, 10- FA : 27-10-2018, 31-
2020, 20-04-2020,
09-2018 01-2020, 30-01-2020
19-04-2020
CPIO : 31-10-2018, 03- FAO : 12-12-2018, 22- Hearing : 22-11-2021,
10-2018, 18-09-2018, 20- 11-2018, 28-02-2020, 18- 24-11-2021 & 25-11-
09-2018 02-2020 2021
ORDER
CIC/LOKSS/A/2020/667245:
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Parliament of India, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information including inter-alia as under:-
"3. Consequently this application is made to LKSS, RSS asking categorically if in respect of NERAMAC any annual report for any year since its incorporation till date has been filed by the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies or the Ministry of Food Processing Industries or Ministry for Development of North Eastern Region has been filed.
4. If so copies of the said reports for the said years which have been filed and so placed may be forwarded
5. If the same has been filed for all years, pls forward their copies as well
6. Pls categorically state the years etc. etc. for which the said report has not been filed and not placed before legislature".
2. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the appellant has file first appeal dated 27-10-2018 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide letter dated 12-12-2018 informed the appellant that the CPIO vide letter dated 31.10.2018 have already furnished a point wise reply and also advised the appellant to approach the concerned public authorities/Ministry and disposed of his appeal. Thereafter the appellant 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.
CIC/PAROI/A/2020/667276:
3. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Parliament of India, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information including inter-alia as under:-
Page 2 of 12"a. In respect of NERAMAC any annual report for any year since its incorporation till date has been filed by the M/o. Food & Civil Supplies or the Ministry of Food Processing Industries or M/o. Development of North Eastern Region has been filed. b. If so copies of the said reports for the said years which have been filed and so placed may be forwarded". Etc
4. The CPIO vide letter dated 03-10-2018 has given reply to the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 27-10- 2018 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide letter dated 22-11-2018 upheld the reply furnished by the CPIO and also directed the CPIO to transfer the RTI application to the above Ministries and the Lok Sabha Secretariat within five days of the receipt of this order and disposed the appeal. Thereafter the appellant 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.
CIC/DOFPD/A/2020/668385:
5. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) M/o. Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information including inter-alia as under:-
"3. Consequently this application is made to LKSS, RSS asking categorically if in respect of NERAMAC any annual report for any year since its incorporation till date has been filed by the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies or the Ministry of Food Processing Industries or Ministry for Development of North Eastern Region has been filed.
4. If so copies of the said reports for the said years which have been filed and so placed may be forwarded
5. If the same has been filed for all years, pls forward their copies as well
6. Pls categorically state the years etc. etc. for which the said report has not been filed and not placed before legislature".
6. The CPIO vide letter dated 18-09-2018 informed the appellant that the information in this regard may be treated as NIL. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 31-01-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide letter dated 28-02- 2020 upheld CPIO's reply and disposed the appeal. Thereafter the appellant has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that Page 3 of 12 information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
CIC/MOFPI/A/2020/668397:
7. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) M/o. Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information including inter-alia as under:-
"3. Consequently this application is made to LKSS, RSS asking categorically if in respect of NERAMAC any annual report for any year since its incorporation till date has been filed by the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies or the Ministry of Food Processing Industries or Ministry for Development of North Eastern Region has been filed.
4. If so copies of the said reports for the said years which have been filed and so placed may be forwarded
5. If the same has been filed for all years, pls forward their copies as well
6. Pls categorically state the years etc. etc. for which the said report has not been filed and not placed before legislature".
8. The CPIO vide letter dated 20-09-2018 informed the appellant that the RTI application does not pertain to this Ministry and the information in this regard may be treated as NIL. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 31-01-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide letter dated 18-02-2020 upheld CPIO's reply and rejected the appeal. Thereafter the appellant 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.
CIC/MOFPI/C/2020/668398:
9. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o. Food Processing Industries. The complainant is seeking information including inter-alia as under:-
"3. Consequently this application is made to LKSS, RSS asking categorically if in respect of NERAMAC any annual report for any year since its incorporation till date has been filed by the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies or the Ministry of Food Processing Industries or Ministry for Development of North Eastern Region has been filed.Page 4 of 12
4. If so copies of the said reports for the said years which have been filed and so placed may be forwarded
5. If the same has been filed for all years, pls forward their copies as well
6. Pls categorically state the years etc. etc. for which the said report has not been filed and not placed before legislature".
10. The CPIO vide letter dated 20-09-2018 informed the complainant that the RTI application does not pertain to this Ministry and the information in this regard may be treated as NIL. Being dissatisfied with the same, the complainant has file first appeal dated 31-01-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide letter dated 18-02-2020 upheld CPIO's reply and rejected the appeal. Thereafter 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:
11. The appellant/ complainant attended the hearing through video-call. The respondent, Shri Rajesh Kumar Pandeer, Under Secretary/ CPIO along with Shri. K. Sona, Deputy Secretary/ CAPIO, Mr. Vinay Shankar Singh, Director/ CPIO and Mr. Srinivasam, Sr. Marketing Officer/ CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
12. The respondent submitted their written submissions and the same have been taken on record.
13. The appellant/ complainant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI applications. He further submitted that unrelated information had been furnished by the CPIO without application of mind. Further he stated that if the information sought is not available with the respondent the same should have been transferred to the concerned Ministry and hence pleaded that appropriate action be taken against the respondents.
14. The respondent submitted that the appellant is seeking information relating to annual report of NERAMAC filed by the M/o Food and Civil Supplies or the M/o Food Processing Industries or Ministry for Development of North Eastern Region. They further submitted that a due and timely response has already been furnished to the appellant/ complainant.
Decision:
15. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant/ complainant has sought Page 5 of 12 information relating to annual report of NERAMAC filed by the M/o Food and Civil Supplies or the M/o Food Processing Industries or Ministry for Development of North Eastern Region. The Commission further observes that no corporation is entitled to submit the annual report directly to the parliament and submit the same through the controlling ministry who lays it before the table of the parliament. The concerned CPIOs has already furnished the details of the date of laying of annual report of NERAMAC to the appellant vide letter dated 31.10.2018 and informed the appellant that the authenticated copies of the report are sent to parliament library and he may contact the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region for copies of the Report. However the annual reports of the Central Public Sector undertaking are presented annually to the Parliament through the concerned Ministries. But various other reports believed to be generated in compliance of various Acts, Rules guidelines etc., cannot be expected to be quantified and identified by the CPIO under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
16. The Commission further observes that the appellant/ complainant is further asking for various proceeding against any or all of the CPSEs under the M/o. Food and Civil Supplies or the M/o Food Processing Industries or Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region, where proceeding, actions or reports have been generated under various Acts, Rules etc which the appellant/ complainant has mentioned in his RTI applications specifically in relation to NERAMAC should also be provided to him which makes the information sought as almost infinite and without any specificity or boundaries expecting the CPIO to interpret the information and the situational queries mentioned in his RTI applications, to identify and collate such non- specific and presumptive information which doesn't come under the ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
17. The framework of the RTI Act, 2005 expects that the information sought is specific and believed to be existing with the public authority in documented or material form as such; which can be shared with the appellant/ complainant as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Answering to broad, multiple and general queries and presumptive documents that should have been generated as per the expectation of the appellant/ complainant cannot be furnished under the provisions of the Act.
18. 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 Page 6 of 12 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 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 Page 7 of 12 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 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."
19. While examining the RTI application the Commission observes that where the information sought is neither specific nor limited and by description including such reports which might have been generated in compliance of Acts, rules etc., makes it almost an infinite query with specificity and boundaries. In this regard the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive Page 8 of 12 as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
20. However with regards to Second Appeals no.
CIC/LOKSS/A/2020/667245,CIC/PAROI/A/2020/667276,CIC/DOFPD/A/2020 /668385 & CIC/MOFPI/A/2020/668397, the Commission directs the Ministry which is responsible for getting the reports of the NERAMAC tabled before the parliament being the custodian of such information, to ensure that the annual reports of the NERAMAC can be furnished to the appellant, on admissible charges as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 or if the information sought by the appellant is voluminous in nature, a right to inspection may be offered to the appellant as per the relevant provision of the Act. However, if the above information is readily available in public domain a specific web link to that effect shall be furnished to the appellant. If in case the information sought requires compilation and is not available in the manner as sought by the appellant a categorical reply to this effect be furnished to him. In case none of the public authority who are party to this appeals are the controlling Ministries for NERAMAC, they may give an appropriate revised reply indicating the same fact and suggesting the appropriate controlling Ministry who are responsible for preparing and tabling the annual report of the NERAMAC before the Parliament to be approached by the appellant/ complainant for seeking the information directly.
21. With regards to the second appeal no. CIC/DOFPD/A/2020/668385, the Commission issues a strict warning to the CPIO, for furnishing a wrong and completely unrelated reply to the appellant without application of mind, hence the CPIO is directed to remain more vigilant and cautious in future while dealing with the RTI applications.
Page 9 of 1222. Further with regards to the complaint no. CIC/MOFPI/C/2020/66839, complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act questioning the conduct of CPIO for penalties rather seeking the information. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of 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 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."
23. The Commission observed that prima facie there is no malafide or willful obstruction of information on the part of the respondent. In light of the above factual matrix no case of penalty has been made out and accordingly the complaint is being dropped. Further the abovementioned direction with regards to the second appeals should be complied by the respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to this Commission.
Page 10 of 1224. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of and the complaint is being dropped.
25. 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 : 22-11-2021
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
Parliament of India
Lok Sabha Secretariat
Parliament House Annexe
New Delhi-110001
2. CPIO
M/o. Consumer Affairs,
Food & Public Distribution,
Dept. of Food & Public Distribution,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
3. CPIO
M/o. Food Processing Industries
Panchsheel Bhawan, August Kranti Marg,
New Delhi-110049
4. CPIO
Parliament of India
Rajya Sabha Secretariat
Parliament House Annexe
New Delhi-110001
5. CPIO
M/o. Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises,
Department of Heavy Industry,
Enterprises Bhawan
Page 11 of 12
Block-14, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
6. Mr. T. V. Sundaresan
Page 12 of 12