Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 1 September, 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 ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/SPMCO/C/2019/600850
Varun Krishna ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Security Printing And Minting ... ितवादी/Respondent
Corporation Of India Limited
(SPMCIL), New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 14-12-2018 FA : Not on Record Complaint: 16-01-2019
CPIO : 08-01-2019 FAO : Not on Record Hearing: 24-08-2020
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Security Printing And Minting Corporation Of India Limited (SPMCIL), New Delhi seeking following information:-
"a) Subject matter of information: 1. Pertaining to Case No:
CIC/IGMHY/C/2018/130286-BJ Dtd 17.9.18 where the Commission keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, considering the administrative nature of the Complaint, the Commission directs the CMD, SPMCIL to verify the matter through an appropriate authority and inform the Complainant accordingly within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order [1]
2. Compliance report from SPMCIL is submitted on 7.12.18 [2].
b) The period to which information relates: 17.9.18 to 7.12.18.
c) Description of Information required: Please provide certified copies of following information:
Page 1 of 61. Documentary proofs based upon which CMD-SPMCIL or other competent authority has verified that the RTI application responded vide letter dated 31.03.2017 was dispatched timely i.e. allegation of complainant of fabrication of records endorsed by FAA was false.
2. If no information exists for Sno 1, then provide Name and Designation of the official accountable."
2. The CPIO responded on 08-01-2019. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. Hearing:
3. The complainant, Mr. Varun Krishna attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. V Balaji, AGM(HR) participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The complainant contended that he has specifically sought documentary proofs based upon which CMD-SPMCIL or any other competent authority has verified that the RTI application responded vide letter dated 31.03.2017 was dispatched timely i.e. allegation of complainant of fabrication of records endorsed by FAA was false. If no information exists in this regard, the CPIO should have provided him name and designation of the responsible official. However, the then CPIO did not factor this issue in the reply dated 08-01-2019 and instead had given an evasive reply indicating that the information is not available on point no. 1 and the query raised on point no. 2 is hypothetical in nature. Therefore, an appropriate legal action should be initiated against the then CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
5. The respondent submitted that the information in the manner sought by the complainant is not available in respect of point no. 1 and the query raised on point no. 2 is hypothetical in nature which is not covered u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
6. This Commission is not adjudicating on furnishing the information to the complainant and therefore, the legal issue to be decided herein is whether there is any malafide of the then CPIO which attracts penal action u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. This Commission observes that the respondent has categorically confirmed that the information in the manner sought by the complainant on point no. 1 is not available. Therefore, the CPIO cannot be expected to analyse and interpret the documents for creating the information in the format sought by the Page 2 of 6 complainant. It is to be noted that on point no. 2, the complainant herein attempts to elicit answer to his question with prefix, such as, 'if'. Therefore, the CPIO is not supposed to interpret information; or to furnish replies to situational queries; or to furnish clarifications. Hence, the queries seeking answers and explanations 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:-
"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 Page 3 of 6 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. 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."
7. The complainant has pressed for imposition of penalty on the CPIO, therefore, with regard to the situations governing imposition of penalty on the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, this Commission refers to the decision dated 01-06-2012 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 titled as Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr., wherein, it was held as under:-
"61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the Page 4 of 6 information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to fulfill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."
8. Similarly, the following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors., WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:-
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
9. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr., WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20-03-2009 has held as under:-
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely. ...The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."Page 5 of 6
10. In light of the factual matrix of the case and the legal principles enunciated in the aforementioned case-laws, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the complainant has not been able to substantiate his contentions regarding malafide denial of information by the respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause. In view of this, no action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 is warranted in this case.
11. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
12. 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:24-08-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Security Printing And Minting Corporation Of
India Limited (SPMCIL), Nodal PIO, RTI Cell,
16th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Varun Krishna
Page 6 of 6