Central Information Commission
Rajkumar Choudhary vs Maganese Ore (India) Ltd. on 9 June, 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
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOILL/A/2018/174677
Shri Rajkumar Choudhary ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO, MOIL Limited, MOIL ... ितवादी /Respondent
Bhawan, Katol Road, Dsitrict
Nagpur, Maharashtra.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 28.05.2018 FA : 18.07.2018 SA : 28.12.2018
CPIO : 30.06.2018 FAO : 01.08.2018 Hearing : 02.06.2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), MOIL Limited, MOIL Bhawan, Katol Road, Dsitrict Nagpur, Maharashtra. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
"Reason as to why the employees for the post of MCO-Grade-II Tapping were selected with the qualification of 7th/8th pass but the advertisement says to select the candidates with qualification of matriculation pass".
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 18.07.2018 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 01.08.2018 and disposed of his Page 1 of 6 first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Ms. Preeti Joshi, Dy. General Manager (Legal) & CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The appellant submitted that no information has been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 28.05.2018. The appellant requested the Commission that complete information should be provided to him.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 30.06.2018, they have informed the appellant that he has sought similar information in his earlier RTI applications, which has been replied to within stipulated period of time. The respondent reiterated the replies given by the CPIO and FAA.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the query of the appellant amounts to interpretation/clarification of the information, as he has sought reasons that as to why some employees of lesser educational qualification was selected, etc. and the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to give his opinions; or to furnish clarification to the appellant. The query of the appellant does not cover under the definition of information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The CPIO can only provide information which is available in the record or is held with the public authority.
Page 2 of 67. 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 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 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..... "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:Page 3 of 6
"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 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 Page 4 of 6 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."
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कुमार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क / Date:-02.06.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#ािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, MOIL Limited, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, MOIL Bhawan, 1A, Katol Road, Dsitrict Nagpur, Maharashtra-440013.
2. Shri Rajkumar Choudhary, Page 6 of 6