Central Information Commission
Sangeeta Dogra vs Central Zoo Authority, New Delhi on 27 July, 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
File No : CIC/CZAUR/A/2021/660664
Sangeeta Dogra ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Zoo Authority, RTI Cell,
B-1 wing, 6th Floor, Pt. Deendayal
Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26/07/2022
Date of Decision : 26/07/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16/10/2021
CPIO replied on : 16/11/2021
First appeal filed on : 16/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 14/12/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16/12/2021
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.10.2021 seeking the following information:
1. Certified copies of emails/Letter or communication received from a member of Parliament email ID [email protected] to Member Secretary ID of CZA regarding Rescue Centers from 2007 to 16.10.2021.
2. Certified copies of emails/Letters or communication received from a Member of Parliament email ID [email protected] to Member Secretary ID of CZA seeking issuance of Grant from 2007 to 16.10.2021.1
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 16.11.2021 stating as follows:-
"Point No. 1 & 2:- The requested information is voluminous, vague and dispersed over a large number of files. Collating such information would involve significant diversion of resources of this public authority affecting its daily operations. Therefore, the applicant may prioritize the information and clarify to this public authority."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.11.2021. FAA's order dated 14.12.2021, 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: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: R S Rawat, Finance Officer & CPIO along with Surya Gupta, Assistant present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant while narrating the factual background stated that corrupt practises are on in Central Zoo Authority in collusion with the private NGOs and that there are no provisions in the Wildlife Protection Act for rescue centres in the Zoos .She further stated that in this regard, Smt. Menaka Gandhi had taken up this issue through numerous representations with the Central Zoo Authority; and since this issue is pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, hence in order to validate the authenticity of such letters and also to corroborate evidence in the court case, she filed the instant RTI Application. However, she expressed her dissatisfaction with the denial of information by the CPIO on the plea that the information sought for being voluminous in nature; would entail diversion of human resources and that it should be specific in nature. In response to it, the Commission counselled the Appellant that copies of the emails/ letters of the entire correspondences as sought by her for a period of more than 13 years do appears to be voluminous in nature and collation/compilation of which would divert the resources of the public authorities and therefore, cannot be divulged in view of Section 7(9) of RTI Act.
The CPIO submitted that a timely factual response has already been provided to the Appellant. Further, at the behest of the Commission, he agreed to provide an opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the Appellant.2
The Appellant interjected to vehemently contest the action/inaction of Respondent office in not maintaining their files with proper pagination and indexation as the same has been gathered by her during the past experience of inspection of relevant records. She further alleged that sometimes the officers of the Respondent authority are in the habit of removing the internal pages from their file records before the inspection stage and later these pages are produced in the Court when asked for by the latter.
In rebuttal to the Appellant's contentions, the CPIO denied the averred allegation of the Appellant and explained that all the files are numbered through their e- system of file maintenance.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of instant RTI Application is of the considered view that the information sought by the Appellant is vague and indeterminate which concededly does not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act. In this regard, 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.
Her attention is also 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 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 `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) Nonetheless, the factual reply from the CPIO is in the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
3However, in furtherance of hearing proceedings and in the spirit of RTI Act, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to offer an opportunity of inspection of the relevant and make available records related to the instant RTI Application to the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time. The intimation of the date & time of inspection will be provided to the Appellant telephonically and in writing by the CPIO. Copy of documents, as identified and desired by the Appellant shall be provided free of cost upto 50 pages and thereafter upon receipt of RTI fees as per RTI Rules, 2012 be provided by the CPIO.
The CPIO is also directed to ensure that due assistance is provided to the Appellant during the inspection in accessing and identifying the records. The said direction should be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect should be sent to the Commission by the CPIO incorporating the details of the records provided for the inspection and copies thereof, immediately thereafter.
Lastly, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding the alleged corruption scam in the Respondent is not amenable under the RTI Act. In this regard, she is advised to pursue her grievance through appropriate proper channel.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) 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