Central Information Commission
Mohan Kumar Sharma vs Prime Minister'S Office on 27 November, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/PMOIN/A/2018/148675
Mohan Kumar Sharma ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Prime Minister's Office, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 23.04.2018 FA : 31.05.2018 SA : 03.08.2018
CPIO : 28.06.2018 FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 25.11.2019
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi seeking information pertaining to any ten achievements (devolvement work or schemes) of union government under the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi since the time he became the PM of India and an opportunity to have Page 1 of 5 an interaction/conversation/information from the PM of India in the presence of national media in this regard.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that correct and complete information has not been provided by the respondent. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide correct and complete information sought by him.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Shri Mohan Kumar Sharma attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent, Shri Parveen Kumar, Under Secretary (RTI) and CPIO, and Shri Saurabh Misra, Section Officer (RTI) and ACPIO were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that he filed a RTI application on 23.04.2018 seeking information regarding any ten achievements of union government under the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi and an interactive session with the PM in media in this regard, however, the CPIO, instead of providing the information, replied stating that the information sought is not as per the definition of the term 'information' given under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant further submitted that aggrieved by the order of the CPIO, he preferred an appeal before the FAA, but the first appeal was not disposed off by the FAA. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.
5. The respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant regarding the achievements of union government under the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi is already available in public domain (india.gov.in) and thus, does Page 2 of 5 not need material disclosure. The respondent further submitted that with regards to point no. 2 of the RTI application, an interactive session with the PM of India is not information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, nothing remains to be provided by the respondent.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that complete and correct information has not been provided to the appellant. The information sought under point no. 1 of the RTI application very much comes within the definition of the term 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 but as regards the information sought under point no. 2, the Commission observes that as per the provisions of the RTI Act, the respondent is under obligation to provide only that information which is available on record. He is not required to create information or provide clarifications. In this regard, the Commission notes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 09.08.2011 in the matter of CBSE & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) has held as under:
"Section 3 Provides for right to information and reads thus: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information." This Section makes it clear that the RTI Act gives a right to a citizen to only access information, but not seek any consequential relief based on such information."
7. In view of the above, the Commission observes that under the RTI Act the CPIO provides information available with him or held by him. Thus, the appellant Page 3 of 5 cannot expect the respondent to take certain action or initiate action as desired by him.
8. The Commission further notes that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Registrar of Companies & Ors. vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Ors. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 had observed:
"9. Section 2(j) of the RTI Act speaks of "the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority. ... This should mean that unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely, or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be 'held' or 'under the control of' the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act."
9. The Commission, however, directs the CPIO to provide the web-link of the website for the information sought vide point no. 1 of the RTI application, to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 4 of 511. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागव)व) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 26.11.2019 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Prime Minister's Office, South Block, New Delhi - 110011
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Prime Minister's Office, South Block, New Delhi - 110011
3. Shri Mohan Kumar Sharma Page 5 of 5