Central Information Commission
Girish Verma vs Ministry Of Cooperation on 27 November, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MOCOP/A/2023/132492
Girish Verma .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Ministry of Cooperation, CD
Division, Atal Akshay Urja
Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.11.2024
Date of Decision : 26.11.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18.03.2023
CPIO replied on : 18.04.2023
First appeal filed on : 24.04.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27.07.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 18.03.2023 seeking the following information:
"(1) My digital records/application/document etc uploaded on facebook a/c./girish. verma. 71653318, Which open for all nexus to my RTI application dated 06-03-2023 by Regd. Pos RF 2 83 443954 IN based on inward NO.153061 SCI/PILCE) / 2021 date of action: 22-02-2021 from Page 1 of 9 Supereme Court of India, New Delhi ha: refused to take action of my CASE since 27-01 2004 to 270/SCI/PIL/2004 to my RECORDS.
(2) My e-mail communication status <girishverma [email protected]> & yours e-mail dated 22-02-2023 at 9:21AM < Kumarramkrishng@ gov.in > by Moc. Kumar Ram Krishna, Deputy secretary, M/O. Corporation, Govt. of India, New Delhi-03 Tel: 011-2086250f Mobile:
9493756194 based on " DISCLAIMER"
(3) My documents & RECORDS in Central Information commission, New Delhi since 2010 to my payment status to per project
(a) five Carore based on hearing to my RTI application addressed to CPIO, President's Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi as well as letter of reply from office of the President of Nepal, Sheetal Niwas, Kathmandu to my Registration No. 1591 Nepali date: 207 -1-19 nexus to my proposal & its project concept for Government of Nepal as democratic government based on TAX payer to direct way or indirect a from citizen of India & Nepal to each others a Nation to democratic based on open border.
(4) official involvement on dated 01-02-2023 Consular Division, Embassy of Russian federation in the Republic of India, New Delhi Tel: 011 26110560 e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] for ARBITRATION to my case based on Indian democracy to my case above twenty two years and based on Nepali democracy to my Case above five years ten months to my case for my payment from Government of India, Bihar and Nepal.
(5) My payment status from Govt. of India to their concerning Ministry and Institution since dated 20-NOV-2003 from Public-1 section President's secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi to their vide letter No. P1/6-220315. Which based on the Constitution of India, Article77(B) & Article 299 to (ⅰ) M/O. Consumer Affairs, krishi Bhawan, New Delhi (ii) Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Electronics Niketan, 6 CGO complex, New Delhi (iii) Ministry of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances, Savedase Patel Bhawan, Neu Delhi (iv) Ministry of Agriculture, Keishi Bhawan New Delhi (v) Ministry of Law & Justice, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi (vi) Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi (vii) Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi (viii) Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, North Block, New Delhi and its RTI cell. (1x) Ministry of cooperation, Atal Akshay Urja Page 2 of 9 Bhawan, New Delhi (x) M/o Company Affairs/corporate Affairs, shastri Bhawan, New Delhi and Government of Bihar to F.I.R. NO.46 of 2009, Town Thana, Motihari - 845401 nexus to IPC 1860, U/S.170,419,468,47 based on disappeared the RECORD NO.1094 dated 26-05-2008, Legal Department, colleterial Building, Motihari-845401 as well as my counter position to my CASE FILE, In the court of President, United Nation Human Rights Commission, Genewa, Switzerland, zip code: 1211 on dated 06.04.2015 against the President of India, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi for violation of my human Rights by democratic governance in India on dated 31-05-2009 to 20-09-2009 in absolutely unconstitutional and illegal way.
(6) Registration NO. PMOPG/D/2022/ 0127 928 dated 25-12-2022 for M/S. Girish Verma & Company (Liaison Agen to the Prime Minister's office, New Delhi). office establishment to propose in Russia & Nepal.
statement delivered by Under Secretary (Public), PMO, New Delhi. Tel:
011- 23014155.
Which show the absolutely illegal & Unconstitutional process and action taken by Government of Bihar based on vide letter No. 18/09/P-2/08 dated 22-09-2008 from The Joint secretary to the President of India, President's secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi. Which is based on under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to my RTI application.
Which influenced by Advocate Rahul Ray, khaitan & Co. New Delhi based on their client M/S. Castrol India ltd. Mumbai. 93, to RJM Pillai, chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna as well as other Govt. of Bihar official person to HOME DEPARTMENT.
Where RJM Pillai, Chief Secretary take "VRS" against the Judicial proceeding to FIR No. 46 of 2009, Town Thana, Motihari.
In which Mrs. Pratibha Devi Patil, Ex-President of India has been in question to my application to Central Information Commission, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi.
(7) My Records to Prime Minister's office, Rail Bhawan New Delhi to its RTI cell.
(8) My Records to Ministry of Defence, Sena Bhawan Imp. New Delhi to most its RTI Cell, nexus to my contribution amount @10% against the mode of payment from Govt. of India & Bihar to F.I.R. NO. 46 of 2009, Page 3 of 9 Town Thana Motihari for Indian Army Welfare fund. which has refused by M/o Defence, South Block, New Delhi from Coln. I. D. Gaur, to the said process status, to accept the contribution amount to any subject. (9) My record to Central Bureau of investigation 6 CGO complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Central vigilance commission, new Delhi and office of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police (Economic offence wing) Qutub Institutional Area, Katwariya Sarai, New Delhi - 16.
(10) My records to National Human Right Commission, New Delhi.
(11) My records to Chief Secretary, Old secretariat Government of Bihar, Patna and High Court legal services committee, Patna High Court, Patna as well as its RTI Cell.
(12) My Records to Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI BHAWAN, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-51 as well as its RTI Cell nexus to Investor's Protection cell, Department of company Affairs, shastri Bhawan, New Delt has been basic stand to my gross percentage Commission amount Rs. 2,66, 336/- based on vide letter No. 411 dated 13-1-2000 from Private Secretary to Minister of Petroleum & Natural Gas Govt. of India, M/o. Petroleum & Natural has, Goregaon (East), Railway compound, Mumbai In which, Me. Ram Naik, Minister of Petroleum & Natural has involved to my case; lubricant dealing to my official involvement based on agreement on letter head of Castrol India ltd. New Delhi in Oct. 1998, which has taken to Mr. P. J. Thobivs, GM, MKTG, Castrol India ltd. Morli, Mumbai. Which did not delivered to me up to date of today," to lubricant deal in May 1999 between Delhi Police (PEL), Rajpur road, Near Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi and castrol india ltd., New Delhi.
Where castrol India Ltd., New delhi has registered to Rate of contrat with DGS&D, New Delhi in June 1999. That's why castrol India Ltd., New Delhi take the payment from DGS&D, New Delhi against the lubricant supply to Delhi police (P&L) in June 1999.
According to my claim for my percentage commission amount to lubricant dealing with Delhi Police (P&L) in 1999, Castrol India ltd involve the securities and exchange board of India (Amendemned) Act, 2002 to investors protection cell. Department of company Affairs New Delhi to Ref. No. C/061/60888/98/CPC-1on dated 13.03.2003.
Page 4 of 9In which, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai has been process to my CASE Since 2006 as well as its Police Case & F.I.R.& Since 2005. Dy Commissioner of Police, zone MIDC Police station, Andheri (East), Mumba - 40093 based on document of securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai to my CASE. In which, Patna High Court has refused to take action to any private companies to my CASE FIRE, as well as direct to approach Securities & Exchange Board of India and other Authorities to action to private company to my Concerning case. where I have sent my Regd. Post application on dated 16-02-2022 to Abhishek Pandya, Securities & Exchange Board of India, Bandsea (East), Mumbai and upload to my facebook a/c. on dated 22-02-2022.
In which, I did not get the answer or reply in official way by Abhishek Pandya, nexus to securities & Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Act, 2002.
(13) My RTI application dated 06-03-2023 which uploaded to my facebook a/c. on dated07-03-2023 addressed to: CPIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Sansad Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. which delivered on dated 11-03 -2023.
(14) My Record to office of the President of Nepal, sheetal Niwas, Kathmandu, which forward to The Prime Minister of Nepal, Kathmandu to the foreign Minister of Nepal, Kathmandu to the Minister of External Affair, M/o. External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi for my payment from Government of India & Bihar. which may verify the official status from M/o. Cooperation, New Delhi to M/o- External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.04.2023 stating as under:
"As the above referred grievance has already been transferred to Govt. of Bihar being subject matter pertaining to the State Govt. Hence, the trailing mail is again being forwarded for kind perusal and appropriate action at your end."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.04.2023. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 5 of 9Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh, Under Secretary & CPIO present in person.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that vide their letter dated 18.04.2023, they have categorically informed the Appellant that his grievance has already been transferred to Govt. of Bihar being subject matter pertaining to the State Govt.
The Respondent further apprised the Commission that queries of the Appellant is vague and non-specific.
Decision:
The Commission based on perusal of the facts on record finds that the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the reply provided by the CPIO is bereft of merit as the RTI Application merely seeks for clarifications and answers to interrogative queries.
The Commission upon a perusal of records and perusal of nature of the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application, he appears to have misinterpreted the scope and ambit of the RTI Act or appears largely not well acquainted with the technicalities of the Act in terms of what to ask, how to ask and most importantly, what to expect from the CPIO(s) & FAA in exercise of his right to information. In other words, the information sought in the RTI application do not strictly even conform to the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has raised queries or statements that are in the form of conjecture, seeking answers to "whether" questions or requires the CPIO to form an opinion based on records or interpret the records.
In this regard, the DOPT has issued several Office Memorandums (OMs) wherein it has been categorically noted that RTI Act does not include answers to the questions like 'why' or 'whether'. The PIO cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification.Page 6 of 9
It is an admitted fact that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advises/rules can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the Public Authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the Appellant.
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.Page 7 of 9
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) 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 Page 8 of 9 adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, the Respondent has informed the factual position in the matter to the Appellant and the Commission agrees with the stand taken by the Respondent which the CPIO has already informed to the Appellant.
No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, Ministry of Cooperation, CD Division, Atal Akshay Urja Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)