Central Information Commission
Satish Ashok Sherkhane vs Spmcil - India Government Mint, Mumbai on 5 March, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.CIC/IGMUM/A/2018/625534
Satish Ashok Sherkhane ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO ...प्रतिवादीगण /Respondent
India Govt. Mint Mumbai, (A Unit
Of Security Printing And Minting
Corporation of India Limited
(SPMCIL), Mumbai- 400001.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 15-03-2018 FA : 17-04-2018 SA : 11-07-2018
CPIO : 13-04-2018 FAO : 09-06-2018 Hearing : 03-03-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Security Printing And Minting Corporation of India Limited (SPMCIL), Mumbai seeking information on two points, including, inter-alia;
"1. With reference to the Office order no. I-167/1448/Admn./2018 dated 13.03.2018, provide the following documents:Page 1 of 7
i. Provide xerox copies of approval of General Manger with reference to above noted office order along with file noting and signature of the officer, ii. Provide xerox copies of Recommendation of the DPC dated 09.03.2018 with reference to above noted office order along with file noting and signature of the officer, iii. Provide xerox copies of all the documents which are prepared/executed and placed by Administration Section before Departmental Promotion Committee with reference to the above noted office order along with file noting and signature of the officer, iv. Provide xerox copies of Reservation Roster for promotion with reference to above noted office order along with file noting and signature of the officer, v. Provide xerox copies of office copy of the above noted office order along with file noting and signature of the officer,
2. With reference to the Office order no. I-167/1447/Admn./2018 dated 13.03.2018, provide the following documents:
i. Provide xerox copies of approval of General Manger with reference to above noted office order along with file noting and signature of the officer, ii. Provide xerox copies of Recommendation of the DPC dated 09.03.2018 with reference to above noted office order along with file noting and signature of the officer, iii. Provide xerox copies of all the documents which are prepared/executed and placed by Administration Section before Departmental Promotion Committee with reference to Page 2 of 7 the above noted office order along with file noting and signature of the officer, iv. Provide xerox copies of Reservation Roster for promotion with reference to above noted office order along with file noting and signature of the officer, v. Provide xerox copies of office copy of the above noted office order along with file noting and signature of the officer."
2. The CPIO provided point wise reply vide letter dated 13.04.2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 17.04.2018 stating that complete information has not been provided to him. The first appeal was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 09.06.2018 upholding CPIO's reply. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to direct the respondent to provide the sought for information and also to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Shri Satish Ashok Sherkhane, and the respondent, Smt. Rashmi Singh, Dy. Manager (HR), Security Printing And Minting Corporation of India Limited (SPMCIL), Mumbai attended the hearing through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant submitted that vide his RTI application dated 15.03.2018, he has sought information pertaining to two office orders, namely, Office order no. I-
167/1448/Admn./2018 dated 13.03.2018 and Office order no. I- 167/1447/Admn./2018 dated 13.03.2018. Further, vide point nos. 1(iv) and 2(iv), he has sought copies of Reservation Roster for promotion with reference to the above noted office orders. The respondent, however, has provided him with the copies of reservation rosters for the year 2016 while the office order pertains to the year 2018. He further submitted that the respondent has malafidely withheld the Page 3 of 7 reservation rosters for the year 2018, thus, obstructing the flow of information. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide correct and complete information sought for.
5. The respondent submitted that due information, as available on records, has been provided to the appellant, by the respondent, vide letter date 13.04.2018. She further submitted that at the date of reply, the reservation rosters available in their office records were for the year 2016. Thus, the same were provided to the appellant. Further, the information, as sought vide point nos. 1(iv) and 2(iv), has also been provided to the appellant vide letters dated 10.02.2018 and 18.09.2019, in response to two different RTI applications. She submitted that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or furnished replies to the hypothetical questions. The appellant, however, is expecting the CPIO to interpret as to which roster was used in the above noted promotion orders.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, finds that an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. The Commission, further, observes that on a plain reading of point nos. 1(iv) and 2(iv) of the RTI application in question, it appears that the appellant is seeking copies of Reservation Roster that are in reference to the above noted two office orders, i.e. Office order no. I-167/1448/Admn./2018 dated 13.03.2018 and Office order no. I-167/1447/Admn./2018 dated 13.03.2018. The respondent, vide his reply dated 13.04.2018, has provided a copy of the reservation rosters, as available on records, to the appellant. The appellant is, however, contesting that the said rosters pertain to the year 2016 and not 2018. The Page 4 of 7 Commission observes that under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO cannot be expected interpret as to which reservation roster was used in the said promotion orders. The CPIO is only required to provide information which is available on records. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. in SLP (C) 34868 of 2009 dated 04.01.2010, has held as under:
"6. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides: "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, 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 law for the time being in force."
7. "....the 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. A judge cannot be expected to give reasons other than those that have been enumerated in the judgment or order."
In the matter of CBSE & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) decision dated 09.08.2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
Page 5 of 7"35......... 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..............."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011] has held as under:
"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."
7. In view of the above ratios, it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 6 of 79. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु मारगुप्ता) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयुक्त) दिनांक / Date :-03-03-2020 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानितसत्यानपतप्रनत) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमाग), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO India Govt. Mint Mumbai, (A Unit Of Security Printing And Minting Corporation of India Ltd.
(SPMCIL), Dy. Manager (HR) & PIO, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400001.
2. Satish Ashok Sherkhane Page 7 of 7