Central Information Commission
Gita Dewan Verma vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 27 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/642167
CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/644307
Gita Dewan Verma ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Personnel &
Training, RTI Cell, North
Block, New Delhi-110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26/04/2023
Date of Decision : 26/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note: The above referred matters have been clubbed for hearing and decision
as these are based on the same RTI Application and replied to by the CPIOs
falling under the jurisdiction of the same public authority.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13/05/2022
CPIO replied on : 16/06/2022 & 02/06/2022
First appeal filed on : 16/06/2022 & 04/06/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 15/07/2022 & 01/07/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01/08/2022 & 13/08/2022
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.05.2022 seeking the following information:
"Work allocation of Information Rights Division IR-II section shown in the disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(i) published on DOPT website at:
https://dopt.gov.in/sites/default/files/InductionMaterial-30-09-2020.pdf includes both the Examination of matters related to amendments in the RTI Act and the Framing and Notification of Rules under RTI Act and matters related thereto. The Important Files of IR Division published under Proactive Disclosures, however, include only File relating to Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 and do not include any Files relating to the Framing and Notification of Rules under RTI Act. Therefore:
(1) Please either publish or inform (point-wise, separately for (a) to (c) below) reasons for not publishing the Files relating to:
(a) Framing and Notification of the Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 (G.S.R.650(E) dated 28/10/05).
(b) Framing and Notification of the Right to Information Rules, 2012 (G.S.R.603(E) dated 31/07/12).
(c) Framing of the Rules about which it was stated on 28/02/17 before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2230/2012 (Central Information Commission vs DDA & Anr) that the process of framing rules has been initiated and it may take about eight weeks.
(https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/courtnic/rop/2010/27047/rop_897789.pdf) (2) Meanwhile / in case the Files related to Framing and Notification of Rules are not to be uploaded in coming days, please inform (point-wise, separately for (a) to
(d) below, w.r.t specific relevant records) the material basis for the following changes in appeal procedure Rules:
(a) The removal in Rule 12(2) of 2012 of the option to not be present that was afforded to the appellant in Rule 7(2) of 2005.
(b) The removal in Rule 12 of 2012 of the prohibition in Rule 7(4) of 2005 of representation by a legal practitioner.2
(c) The insertion, by way of Rule 13 of 2012, of a provision for Presentation by the Public Authority through any representative or any of its officers.
(d) The removal in Rule 15 of 2012 of the stipulation in Rule 8 of 2005 for the Order of the Commission to be pronounced in open proceedings."
CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/642167 The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 16.06.2022 stating as under:
"Point No. 1: The definition of Information cannot include within its fold answers to the question -why- which would be 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.
Further, you may also refer Department s O.M No. 1/7/2009 dated 20th May, 2011 (Decision dated 03.04.2008 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 419 of 2007 in the case of Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs. Goa State Information Commission regarding Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005) regarding information under RTI Act, 2005 in questioner form (i.e. why, what & where) which is available on website of this Department at link below:
dopt.gov.in/Notifications/OMs & Orders/RTI Point No. 2.: All the information related to framing to RTI Rules, 2012 is available in F.No. 1/35/2009-IR of this Department which is a voluminous having around 550 pages. Compiling information sought which is not specific would disproportionately divert the resources of this Section and hence, attracts Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. You are hereby, requested to inspect the said file on 21.06.2022 during working hours in Room No. 215 A/2, North Block, New Delhi-
110001 or a mutually convenient date and time for which the CPIO may be contacted on 01123092759. Inspection will be allowed subject to all exemption provisions available in the RTI Act, 2005 and furnishing of the requisite fee as laid down under RTI Rules, 2012."
3Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.06.2022. FAA's order dated 15.07.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
"CONTEXT:
DOPT disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(i) shows the following work allotment for its Information Rights Division:
DOPT disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(vi) contains for it the following statement of categories of documents:
27. IR Division Information relates to broad categories of documents like circulars, reports, publications etc. All the OMs related to clarification/modification of RTI Act,2005 have already been posted in the Department's website since its existence to till date.
No classification of importance of files is disclosed. However, 26 'Important Files of IR Division' are published under RTI - Proactive Disclosures - presumably u/s 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act. Printout of index is in 'Supporting Document-1'. 20 relate to RTI Act 2005 (Nos. 16-21 are prior), only one of which (No.5, 'File relating to Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019') relates to IR Division's work allotment (IR-II item #2). 16 pertain to appointment of C'IC and ICs that is NOT work of IR Division. 3 are on 'Guidelines for Proactive Disclosure under Section 4 of RTI Act', which also is NOT work of IR Division (being work u/s 26(1)(c), whereas 4 work of IR-I Section at #2 is limited to section 26(1)(a) & (b) and that of IR-II Section at #4 is the power u/s 30 that was exercisable only up to 2007).
DOPT has not disclosed reasons u/s 4(1)(d) for its decisions to deem 25 files unrelated to its allotted work 'Important Files of IR Division' and publish them u/s 4(1)(c) and to NOT so deem and publish any files except the one on RTI Act amendment of 2019 related to the work allotted to IR Division.
xxx GROUNDS:
This 2nd Appeal u/s 19(3) has arisen from failure on part of FAA to duly decided requests and grounds of the 1st appeal u/s 19(3). In particular:
A. Point-1 of my request has become obstructed. Decision to publish or not u/s 4(1)(c) (and providing reasons there-for u/s 4(1)(d)) is province not of CPIO or FAA but of public authority. CPIO failed to take the necessary assistance u/s 5(4) from the officer/s authorised for the same to provide the requested decision / reasons. He evaded point-1 with irrelevant reply that FAA said "seems to be in order" without addressing 1st appeal points 1-3.
B. For point-2, instead of providing the specific information requested, CPIO offered inspection of a single file by invoking section 7(9) for the reason that it "is a voluminous having around 550 pages". I do not believe section 7(9) applies to single file. Nevertheless, in 1st appeal I said that the form (physical inspection) offered by CPIO does not suit me as home-bound old woman and suggested alternative forms to suit both CPIO and me and requested the information in any of those. FAA did not address my 1st appeal point-4 and confirmed CPIO's offer. I am applying to DOPT afresh for the information in the forms that I had suggested.
REQUEST:
I request the Commission to please:
a) consider my 1st appeal requests and grounds and direct the authorised officer/s through CPIO to either publish u/s 4(1)(c) or provide u/s 4(1)(d) the reasons for not publishing files relating to RTI Rules as 'Important Files of IR Division'; and
b) determine if section 7(9) was rightly invoked for a single file and if it is open to CPIO and FAA to insist on a particular form not suited to the requester if section 7(9) is invoked.5
I seek leave to add a request for direction for the information sought in point-2 of my application in case I am unable to access it through fresh request/s by the time this matter reaches u/s 19(3)."
CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/644307 The CPIO, IR-I furnished a reply to the appellant on 02.06.2022 stating as under:
"As far as the answering CPIO is concerned no point relates to furnish information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2022. FAA's order dated 01.07.2022, held as under:
"...........your application had already forwarded by the RTI Cell to the concerned CPIO i.e US (IR-II). As per definition given in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, definitions/hypothetical Questions are not considered part of information to be provided under the RTI Act."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under:
"GROUNDS:
A. 1st appeal grounds and request relate to DOPT's RTI Online MIS. The matter mentioned in its Ground-B is pending in F. No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/642604. Because information has not been given, I have many reservations / apprehensions about RTI Online. One is about the generation of additional registration numbers that it enables. RTI Online FAQ No.17 is "Why I have received multiple RTI registration numbers, even though I have filed single RTI application?". The reply is: This is the case where in your RTI application has been forwarded to multiple CPIOs since the information sought lies with more than one PIO.
But DOPT generates registrations that return NIL responses. Apart from the present case I encountered this in the matter in F. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/614179 and am currently encountering it in case of one request disposed of six times with NIL responses. RTI Online requires for each registration separate process u/s 19(1) onward. This is problematic because, e.g.:
i) It means that the additional registrations are counted as separate requests. This is false, as they were not initiated u/s 6(1) by any requester and no fee was paid, 6 which has accounting implications. The false counting falsely inflates statistics of requests received and likely falsely deflates rejection statistics by counting NIL disposals as cases in which information was given (because it was not duly refused for a reason under the Act).
ii) It is outright vexatious. I make one request responsibly (e.g., by specifying the concerned Section, as in the present case), DOPT multiplies it irresponsibly without even telling me u/s 4(1)(d) its reasons, and I have to file multiple matters u/s 19(1) and thereafter. Especially in case of every NIL disposal of an additional registration I have to appeal every time - not in hope of information, but for peace of mind that I did protest DOPT's abuse of my resort to RTI process to bolster its disposal rate and force my complicity in its falsification of RTI statistics.
B. DOPT IR Division has been issuing since 2007 circulars to all to comply with mandates u/s 4(1) and to dispose of appeals u/s 19(1) by speaking orders. In online Reply in the present matters, however, DOPT IR Division FAA has held that section 4(1)(d) is not covered u/s 2(f) (i.e., DOPT owes me no transparency or accountability for using my request in ways that serve no RTI purpose for me) and also that I need not be given a speaking order on my appeal even if I request it."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing through intra-video conferencing:
The following were present:-
For File No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/642167 Appellant/Complainant: 'Present but yielded under Section 19(4)' (Verbatim extract from the attendance sheet) Respondent: Pawan Kumar, US & CPIO along with Inder Pal, ASO.
File No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/644307 Appellant/Complainant: 'Present, NOT Participating' along with 'Dr. Sarabjit Roy, READER for Appellant.' (Verbatim extract from the attendance sheet) Respondent: D.S.S. Srinivasa Rao, US & CPIO.
At the outset, the Commission finds it expedient to bring on record that in the presence of the Appellant, Dr. Sarabjit Roy, 'READER for Appellant' was heard at length in connection with the instant set of cases as well as 4 other appeal(s) listed for hearing simultaneously. The larger part of the hearing proceedings were centred around the objection of the Appellant and her Reader with regard to the alleged deficiencies in the intra-video conferencing system as they repeatedly insisted that the bench was not audible to them at all; their demand to know the credentials of each of the staff that were assisting the bench during the hearing 7 proceedings and even objecting to the presence of some of these staff; providing unsolicited advice and suggestions as to how the bench should conduct the hearing proceedings; how the staff attached with the bench shall conduct themselves etc. The Commission took on record the expansive written objections of the Appellant against clubbing of the instant two cases by the bench and demanding it to be unlisted among other objections about not listing her cases as per her desired chronology; as also her inability to present her case due to being 'sleep deprived' from filing written submissions in some 9 cases listed to be heard in the Commission around the same time as the instant case and also objected to the non-submission of any written arguments by the DoPT.
Dr. Sarabjit Roy, 'READER for Appellant' also mentioned about being a third party in the instant set of cases amongst 15 others, listed in a written document filed by him prior to the hearing, relevant contents of which are reproduced hereunder for reference:
"We are all third parties by virtue of definitions in the RTI Act 2005 as we are all (a) person other than the citizen making a request for information, and also (b) have made representations to the CPIO or Public Authority, (c) The CPIO has agreed to provide hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of information relating to the aforementioned third parties which were mostly submitted in strict confidence to the public authority with clear and prominent cautions that these highly confidential filings by all of us not be disclosed to anyone outside of the Central Government to whom the business of RTI Act is allocated. I say, that the CPIO has erred in not considering our representations u/s 11 and also the numerous representations concerning confidentiality in framing of the RTI rules since 2006 onwards. It is highly pertinent that the undersigned is the contesting Respondent against CIC in the Supreme Court in the matter of framing of RTI Rules and it is a highly serious matter how the very important and permanent record files relating to framing of Rules under RTI Act have gone missing on several occasions, especially when this matter is pending in Supreme Court of India. Because these filings relate to the years 2005 onwards and concern documents of a permanent nature which are to be carefully preserved for posterity in the National Archives, and because we the above mentioned third parties apprehend that the CPIO / Public Authority is malafidely attempting to defame and tarnish our public reputations by circulating fabricated / tampered documents at the behest of foreign / enemy powers who are out to destroy the unity and integrity of India, I am circulating the present NOTICE to all concerned third parties to either appear in person on the said date / matters or else to authorise the undersigned to represent your respective organisations before the Commission. As time is short and many 3rd parties are out of Delhi, eg. Nagpur, Kollam, Ahmednagar, Kolkata etc, kindly send your authority in favour of the undersigned by email to the addressee Shri C.A. Joseph at the Central Information Commission with cc to myself.
xxx In addition there are at least 20 other linked files relating to formation of RTI rules since 2005 tiil date which the Appellant has sought and which relate to / have information supplied by us in confidence. I therefore request you to kindly issue formal hearing notice to all concerned third parties as required by 8 s/s 19(4) of the RTI Act 2005. In so far as the undersigned is concerned I shall be appearing in person, for myself and all persons who authorise me to act for them in the chamber of Ms. Saroj Punhani."
As for the specific arguments related to the instant cases, since the Appellant and her Reader appeared to be only ventilating their grievances and angst against the system of intra-video conferencing and against the presence of registry staff alongside the bench in a tone and tenor that amounted to a disregard for the decorum of the hearing proceedings, the hearing was concluded by the bench and the parties were advised to disperse.
For the sake of propriety nonetheless, the written arguments in both the cases are taken on record.
Now, in File No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/642167, the Commission is not inclined to make sense of whatsoever the attendance record implies by stating that the Appellant is "Present but yielded under Section 19(4)". The written argument states as under:
"The 2nd Appeal is in the matter of my request to DOPT to (1) either publish or inform reasons for not publishing files related to work of 'Framing and Notification of Rules under RTI Act' in the proactively disclosed 'Important Files of IR Division' and (2) meanwhile inform the material basis of 4 specific changes made in RTI Rules 2012 to the appeal procedure previously prescribed in CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules 2005.
For point-2, CPIO invoked section 7(9) to offer inspection of a single file, FAA refused access to files in alternative forms and 2nd Appeal prayer is for determination if section 7(9) can be invoked for a single file. As stated in 2nd Appeal, I had applied afresh for access to the files in alternative forms. I was informed 3 files, paid for their note parts, made further requests for copies from correspondence parts and for other files revealed, etc. I have not yet accessed the information for point-2, but the last of my further requests are still in process.
CPIO had denied point-1 without saying he was competent to decide about publishing 'Important Files of IR Division' and FAA had failed to decide 1st appeal with speaking order. 2nd Appeal prayer is for direction to either publish u/s 4(1)(c) or provide u/s 4(1)(d) the reasons for not publishing files relating to framing of Rules as 'Important Files of IR Division'. I intend to press that prayer. For due care of third- party rights, I request Notice to DOPT officer/s authorised for publishing 'Important Files of IR Division' because Notice is issued only to CPIO - with direction in para-4 to CPIO to inform third-parties - whereas:
a) CPIO was unable to inform even name and designations of DOPT officer/s authorised for, and procedures followed in, selecting and publishing 'Important Files of IR Division' (in the case pending in F. No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/660348), 9
b) b) CPIO is, therefore, unlikely to be able to identify the third parties needing to be consulted before publishing 'Important Files of IR Division', and
c) c) CPIO had offered me inspection of a whole file without any third-party notice.
I am myself informing Dr Sarbajit Roy, from whom I came to know of third-parties etc."
Similarly, in File No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/644307, the following submissions have been made by the Appellant inter alia:
"1. This case is 2nd Appeal u/s 19(3). Prayer before the Commission is as under:
I request the Commission to please decide, in light of the expatiation in Ground-A herein, my 1st appeal grounds and request the DOPT IR Division FAA has not cared to decide.
The request from which this case arises is No. DOP&T/R/E/22/02640/1, registered by DOPT by using the RTI Online facility to register a receipt u/s 6 multiple times. This facility is justified as under in answer to RTI Online FAQ No. 17:
FAQ: Why I have received multiple RTI registration numbers, even though I have filed single RTI application?
Ans.: This is the case where in your RTI application has been forwarded to multiple CPIOs since the information sought lies with more than one PIO.
However, No. DOP&T/R/E/22/02640/1 was forwarded to IR-I Section and disposed of with the following 'nil' Reply:
Reply :- As far as the answering CPIO is concerned no point relates to furnish information.
2. The information that I seek is that which I had sought in my 1st appeal request, i.e.:
I request to be provided the reasons, in terms of section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, for the decision of RTI Cell / Nodal Officer to forward this request to IR-1 Section and the decision of CPIO US(IR-I) to process it u/s 7(1) (instead of refusing the forwarding by RTI Cell).
My 1st appeal grounds were simply that (A) Reply with which No. DOP&T/R/E/22/02640/1 has been 'disposed of' bears no apparent relation to section 7(1), and (B) I apprehend that No. DOP&T/R/E/22/02640/1 will count as a separate request that was not rejected and will contribute to falsifying RTI statistics and obfuscating status of RTI implementation. The then FAA denied me information in terms of section 4(1)(d) saying:
2. Your application had already been forwarded by the RTI Cell to the concerned CPIO i.e. US (IR-II). As per definition given in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, definitions / hypothetical Questions are not considered part of information to be provided under the RTI Act.
3. I believe that the FAA did not decide my appeal and very wrongly commented to the effect that section 4(1)(d) is hypothetical and that the specific information that the Act mandates u/s 4(1)(d) is not covered by its prior general definition u/s 2(f). Reasons for DOPT decisions to register and have disposed of, in my name, No. DOP&T/R/E/22/02640/1 are not only liable to be provided to me u/s 4(1)(d) but are also within my right u/s 19(5) to have justification sought in appeal proceedings for denial by 'nil' disposal. It is pertinent that whereas RTI Act requires me to address my request u/s 6(1) to CPIO or CAPIO (and empowers no one else to receive my request), RTI Online lets me select public authority and transmits my request to "Nodal Officer". The extra-legal "Nodal Officer" who receives my RTI Online request is not 10 comparable to CAPIO located in sub-divisional locations and is comparable to CPIO. If the RTI Online "Nodal Officer" is out of the ambit of both the public authority's mandate u/s 4(1)(d) and the provision u/s 19(5) that applies to CPIO, then DOPT's RTI Online has vitiated the scheme of the RTI Act by creating a point comparable to CPIO for receiving my request whose decisions on my request cannot be called into question."
Decision:
At the outset, the arguments tendered for listing/un-listing/chronology jump issues of the cases are summarily rejected as these appear to be no substance; far stretched and laborious, seemingly to obstruct or prolong the disposal of the cases by the Commission. Moreover, the manner and extent of the persistent arguments of Dr.Sarabjit Roy with intermittent inputs from the Appellant ludicrously going all out against the technicalities of the intra-video conferencing system and against the staff attached with the registry appeared to sabotage the entire hearing proceedings and is viewed adversely by the bench.
The Commission further observes that the information sought for in the RTI Application does not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as it requires the CPIO to either publish information or inform reasons for not publishing the categories of information that the Appellant thinks should have been placed in the public domain as per Section 4 mandate of the RTI Act. Yet, the CPIOs have attempted to provide factual replies and extended an opportunity of the inspection of available records. 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;.."11
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 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 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) Further for better understating of the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, reference may be had of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], wherein 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:
12"..... 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) In addition to the above observations, it is pertinent to note that even the written arguments of the Appellant on record are more in the nature of expressing conjecture and adducing the possibilities of finding a record holder or questioning the unavailability of the record of this nature, in a manner that knowingly or unknowingly seeks to mortify the CPIOs without even asking for what is prescribed as "information" in the RTI Act.
Having observed as above, the Commission is not in a position to provide for any relief in the matter or to call into question the action/inaction of the CPIO(s) based on their wisdom and understanding of the RTI queries.
Similarly, the Commission finds the entire hullabaloo aired by Dr. Sarabjit Roy, "READER" of the Appellant about the stake of third parties in the instant matter to be overreaching and inconsequential in light of the above observations.
The appeal(s) are dismissed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
13
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पं जीयक
िदनां क /
14