Central Information Commission
Shri. Mukesh Bhardwaj vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 21 May, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/001028
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 21 May 2012
Date of decision : 21 May 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Mukesh Bhardwaj,
Satguru 6666, RZC52, Gopalnagar,
Behind Railmaster Factory,
Dhansa Road, Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 43.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Department of Personnel &
Training, North Block,
New Delhi.
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri R.K. Girdhar, US was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra Both the parties were present during the hearing and made their submissions.
2. The Appellant had made several queries regarding the appellate process followed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act apart from also wanting to know if the MP/MLA/MLC was a public authority within the meaning of the RTI Act. The CPIO had provided some information. The Appellate Authority had CIC/SM/A/2011/001028 endorsed the information provided by the CPIO.
3. We carefully considered the contents of the RTI application. None of the queries made by the Appellant would amount to information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. His queries are clearly in the nature of seeking legal opinion on various provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a function totally beyond the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. All that the Act enjoins the CPIO to do is to provide copies of the relevant government records and documents in response to RTI requests. In the present case, such questions like whether a particular public functionary is a public authority or not or what action should be taken if the CPIO provides false information have been posed. The CPIO cannot obviously provide any clarification or comment on these. The Appellant may consult the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act itself or seek legal opinion from an appropriate legal expert to find out the answers to his queries.
4. The appeal is no merit. It is disposed of accordingly.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) CIC/SM/A/2011/001028 Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2011/001028