Central Information Commission
Virender Kumar vs Broadcast Engineering Constulatants ... on 9 March, 2023
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/BECIL/A/2022/645094
Virender Kumar अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Broadcast Engineering
Consultants India Limited,
RTI Cell, BECIL Bhawan,
C-56, A/17, Sector-62
Noida, UP-201301. ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07/03/2023
Date of Decision : 07/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01/07/2022
CPIO replied on : 14/07/2022
First appeal filed on : 15/07/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 08/08/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Not on record
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.07.2022 seeking the following information:
"Sir, on the basis of letter no. BECIL/HR/2021/OFFER LETTER/FIXED TERM EMPLOYMENT, dated 14-July-20221 received by your company, the applicant was 1 posted on the post of supervisor. The applicant has completed the work with honesty and dedication in the All India Survey of Migrant Workers and All India Quarterly Establishment Based Employment Survey, but Sir, it was mentioned within the point no. 5 of the appointment letter received by you that the applicant should go on tour. TA / DA will be payable but the applicant has not been able to pay the bill even after the completion of his TA / DA bill for the last 6 months on 27-10-2021, 30-12-2021 and 05-01-2022."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 14.07.2022 stating as under:
"No TA/DA bill has been received in BECIL."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.07.2022. FAA's order, dated 08.08.2022, held as under:
"On examining the matter it is found that tour plan approval details have not been received from your approving authority against these bills. Please share the approved tour plan from reporting authority with us supporting your travelling during the tenure for which you have claimed these bills."
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 video conference.
Respondent: Khuswinder Singh Bhatia, AGM & CPIO along with Puneet Sharma present through intra-video conference.
The Commission at the outset counselled the parties that the instant matter is not amenable to the mandate of the RTI Act as the Appellant has neither sought for any information nor have the CPIO or FAA pointed out this fact to the Appellant, rather the CPIO & FAA appear to have facilitated redressal of grievance.
The Appellant nonetheless harped on the fact that his grievance has not been redressed till date.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant has been informed that no TA/DA bill has been received from him in BECIL.2
At the behest of the Commission, the CPIO agreed to provide due assistance to the Appellant if he were to approach BECIL through proper channel with requisite documents.
Decision:
In furtherance of the hearing proceedings, for better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, 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. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(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;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is 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 washeld 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) 3 Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....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...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
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. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied Similarly, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:4
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) The Appellant is therefore advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future. He is further advised to pursue the grievances before the appropriate forum.
The CPIO is similarly advised to offer due assistance to the Appellant in the event that he approached BECIL in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6