Central Information Commission
Hari Ram vs National Highways Authority Of India ... on 8 September, 2022
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/NHAIN/A/2022/612155
Hari Ram ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Highways Authority of
India, Project Implementation
Unit-Jodhpur, RTI Cell,
188, Umaid Heritage,
Ratanada, Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342011 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/09/2022
Date of Decision : 06/09/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18/12/2021
CPIO replied on : 29/01/2022
First appeal filed on : 31/01/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 10/02/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26/02/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 18.12.2021 seeking the following information:1
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 29.01.2022.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.01.2022. FAA's order dated 10.02.2022 stated that information has already been furnished to the appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: G.P.S. Chauhan, DGM & Rep. of CPIO present through video- conference.
The Commission remarked at the outset that the Appellant through an email dated 03.09.2022 filed a written submission wherein he harped on the fact that complete material information has not been received by him till date.
The CPIO also relied on his written submission dated 03.09.2022 and submitted that instant RTI Application has been received in their office on inter transfer basis on 29.01.2022 and a point wise reply along with relevant available information has already been furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 29.01.2022. He further apprised the Commission that NHAI has already taken cognizance of the issue raised by the Appellant and the proposal has since been approved and construction in this regard has already commenced.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of RTI Application(s) that the information sought by the Appellant except at points no. 1 & 7, concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as he has sought clarification/inferences to be drawn by the CPIO based on his interrogation. In this regard, 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.
His attention is also 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 was held 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 3 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) Nonetheless, the reply coupled with relevant permissible information provided by the CPIO and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing to assist the Appellant adequately suffices the information sought in terms of RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4