Central Information Commission
S. Kumari vs Northeast Frontier Railway (Guwahati) on 21 April, 2020
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 ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअ पील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/NFRLG/A/2018/627075
S Kumari ...अ पीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO,M/o Railways, North ... ितवादी /Respondent
East Frontier Railway, Katihar.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 10-05-2018 FA : 11-06-2018 SA: 26-07-2018
CPIO : 31-05-2018 FAO :Not on record Hearing: 20-04-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o Railways, North East Frontier Railway, Katihar seeking following information:-
"1. Please furnish the present status of service of Shri Parvinder Singh Dhillon, Sr CC/SGUJ who was removed for forgery of Railway Pass No. 634808 on 22.3.18.
2. In terms of office order No. E/283/NIP/Comm(T) dated 23.3.18 of DRM (P) Kahar, he was removed from service & on effect of this punishment he is not entitled to compassionate allowance as this is a case of fraudulent use of pass. In this regard, kindly furnish the details of compassionate allowance which will not be provided to him.
3. Kindly furnish the name & designation of present allottee of railway quarter No. 265B situated at Himachal Colony at Siliguri Jn.
4. In terms of para 8.20 of Railway Board, Establishment Master circular No. 49,an employee who resigns from service or is dismissed or removed from service may be permitted to retain the railway quarter for a period of one month only on payment of normal rent/flat rate of licence fee. Since P S Dhillon was removed on 22.3.18 for fraudulent use of railway pass for which Page 1 of 5 he is not entitled for compassionate allowance and as per master circular 49, he can retail railway quarter only upto one month due to removal. As such following information also desired:-
(i) Please furnish the name and designation of authority who allowed PS Dhillon to retain the railway quarter 265B of Himachal colony/SGUJ upto one month from the date of his removal (i.e. 22.4.18) along with the copy of his application & order of the authority.
(ii) Please furnish the name and designation of authority who allowed PS Dhillon to retain the railway quarter 265B of Himachal colony beyond one month (i.e. 22.4.18) along with the copy of order &rules authorizing the same.
(iii) Also furnish the action taken by Railway authority to evict the aforementioned Railway quarter (265B) along with the copy of eviction notice & copy of disconnection of electricity along with the removal of electrical equipment from said railway quarter if vacated by P S Dhillon."
2. The CPIO responded on 31-05-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 11-06-2018 which was not disposed of by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, she filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Ms. S Kumari did not attend the hearing and was also not reachable on phone. The respondent could not attend the hearing. The written submissions are taken on record.
Decision:
4. This Commission observes that the information sought on point no. 3 pertains to allotment of government accommodation and therefore, the respondent is directed to provide the information to the appellant on point no. 3, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The reply dated 31-05-
2018 should be re-sent to the appellant, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
5. However, the queries raised by the appellant on point no. 4 are more in the nature of grievance and hence, this sort of queries seeking clarification from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of 'information' u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:-
Page 2 of 5"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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:-
"(j) 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 ........"
In this context, a reference is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497,wherein it was held as under:-
35..... "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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr.Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. 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.Page 3 of 5
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."
6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
7. 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 : 20-04-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO & Sr. DCM,
M/o Railways, North East Frontier Railway,
DRM's Office Katihar Division, Katihar,
Bihar- 854105.
2. S. Kumari,
Page 5 of 5