Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs Delhi Development Authority on 3 October, 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/DDATY/A/2021/131794
Akshay Kumar Malhotra .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Deputy Director-(Horticulture),
Delhi Development Authority,
Horticulture Division-10,
CSC-656, Sanjay Enclave,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi-110033.
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Assistant Director-(RTI Section),
Delhi Development Authority,
RTI Implementation & Coordination Branch,
C-Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan,
I.N.A. Colony, New Delhi-110023.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.04.2021
CPIO replied on : 25.05.2021
First appeal filed on : 22.05.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 16.06.2021
Second Appeal received at CIC : 10.08.2021
Date of Hearing : 03.10.2022
Date of Decision : 03.10.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 7
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 22.05.2021.
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 25.05.2021, as under:Page 2 of 7
• The FAA vide order dated 16.06.2021 held as under:
• Reply dated 27.09.2022, has been received from PIO/DY. Director (Hort), DDA, as under 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 in person.
Respondent: Mr. K.R. Meena, Dy. Director (Horticulture-X), DDA Written submission has been received from Appellant, vide letter dated 25.09.2022 for perusal. However, the Commission rejects the request of Appellant for change of bench.
Appellant stated that relevant information has not been furnished to him in the instant matter. He further requested the Commission that action be taken against the erring PIO.
Page 3 of 7Written submission has been received from PIO, O/o Deputy Director, Horticulture Division No-X vide letter dated 27.09.2922 for perusal. PIO further submitted that he would abide by the orders of Commission, if any.
Upon Commission's instance, PIO submitted that information has been duly furnished to the Complainant.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that under the RTI Act the CPIO can only provide information which is available in the record. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which states:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, ad vices, 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."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 (CBSE &Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.) had held that:
"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. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. 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. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions..."Page 4 of 7
Thus, a combined reading of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 with the above decision clearly indicates that 'information' as defined in the section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material as is already available in the records of the public authority.
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..............."
"37. ...The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption...."Page 5 of 7
Furthermore, the Apex Court also held in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 that "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 counter- productive 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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
In view of the above, the Commission notes that an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. Moreover, the Respondent has also Page 6 of 7 provided an updated reply to the Appellant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
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 7 of 7