Central Information Commission
Santosh Sable vs Directorate Of Plant Protection ... on 14 June, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/DPPQS/A/2018/123401/00906
File no.: CIC/DPPQS/A/2018/123401
In the matter of:
Santosh Sable
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine storage,
Department of Agriculture & cooperation,
Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee,
NH- IV, Faridabad Old CGO complex (Haryana) - 121001.
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 08/01/2018 CPIO replied on : No on Record First appeal filed on : 19/02/2018 First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record Second Appeal dated : 03/04/2018 Date of Hearing : 14/06/2019 Date of Decision : 14/06/2019 The following were present:
Appellant: Shri. Sachin Kantilal Momaya, Representative of the Appellant. Respondent: Shri. Vivek Narayan, Senior Administrative Officer, representative of CPIO.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information in the context of Notification no S.O.511(E) vide which Boric Acid, among other substances, had been included under Section 3 (e) of the Insecticide Act,1968 :-1
1. After the inclusion of Boric Acid in the schedule to the Insecticide Act, 1968-
(a) whether any further study/research has been carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare and Central Insecticides Board and Registration committee and research paper.
(b) Whether circulars/notifications issued by the concerned departments /Ministries on the basis of research carried out for continuation of Boric Acid under Section 3(e) of Insecticides Act 1968.
(c) Whether representations received from the manufacturers of Boric Acid to still consider Boric Acid as insecticide under Insecticide Act, 1968.
2. All relevant documents in respect of the above including noting /note sheets, reports, VIP references/comments etc. Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant submitted that the reply from concerned CPIO and the First Appellate Authority was not received.
The Respondent submitted that the RTI application was neither received by the CPIO nor by the First Appellant Authority in this case. Furthermore, the respondent submitted that the information asked by the appellant was not maintained by them as per record.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the records, the Commission observed that the RTI application was not received by the CPIO due to which the reply was not provided to the Appellant. However, the information sought by the appellant was more of a query in nature and not information as per the definition contained in Sec 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, 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 2 law for the time being in force."
The Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhya and Ors, in CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009] vide its decision dated 09.08.2011 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. This is clear from a combined reading of section
3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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."
Furthermore, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) has 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 3 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."
The High Court of Madras in W.P.No.26781 of 2013 & M.P.No.1 of 2013(The Public Information Officer And others v. The Central Information Commission) decided on 17.09.2014, had also held the following:
"Before we go into the merits of the case, let us consider the relevant provisions of the RTI Act for the purpose of deciding this case, which read as follows: The RTI Act defines "information" under Section 2(f) as follows: "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." Likewise, it defines "right to information" under Section 2(j) as follows: "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 the right to-(i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device."
Following the above ratio and the information sought in this case, it is clear that the information sought is not covered under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
4Decision:
In view of the observations made above, the Commission directs the respondent to affirm on affidavit that neither the RTI application nor the First Appeal were received in their office. The said affidavit be sent to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. As far as the case itself is concerned, no further relief can be given to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
5