Central Information Commission
T. V. Sundaresan vs Department Of Heavy Industries on 5 January, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा/Second Appeal No. CIC/DOHIN/A/2020/668787 &
CIC/DOHIN/A/2020/668792
Mr. T.V. Sundaresan ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
M/o. Heavy Industries and Public
Enterprises, Department of Heavy
Industry, PE-XI Section, Udyog
Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 16-10-2019 FA : 29-01-2020 SA : 24-04-2020
CPIO : 14-11-2019 & 07- FAO : Not on Record &
Hearing : 31-12-2021
11-2019 27-02-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) M/o. Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
"(a) if the Lok Sabha / Rajya Sabha has a list of such companies and if the list is updated at least annually on fresh induction of capital / additional capital / 100% privatization / new incorporations etc
(b) Whether furnishing of such annual reports, CAGs report, auditors report etc is monitored and compliances ensured
(c) If on receipt of such annual reports the said annual reports are compared with the auditors and CAGs reports , comments on auditors reports , CAG reports , Directors Responsibility Statements , Corporate Governance norms etc
(d) instances of action taken where fraud is associated, or misappropriation etc takes place or where false entries are passed eg Page 1 of 6 overstating net worth which is resorted to avoid personal responsibilities under Sec 24 Sick Industrial Companies Special Provisions Act 1985, and / or unwarranted tax and / or dividends and / or interests and / or taxes on distribution of income etc incurred to avoid liabilities under the said Sec 24 etc etc
(e) Instances of action taken if any where the auditors and / or the CAG has reported that accounts do not offer a true and fair view etc
(f) ATR on adverse and qualified reports of auditors and CAG and comparing the same with Directors Responsibility Statements etc
(g) ATR on fraud misstatements errors etc on " state " not required to place accounts etc before Legislature eg banks etc etc eg National Highway Authority of India Act (Late Sri Satyendranath Dubey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Dubey).
(h) ATR on instances of mismanagement , conflict of interest , losses on account of misfeasance, malfeasance, non feasance, conflict of interest, fraud etc etc".
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 14-11-2019 & 07-11-2019 has given reply to the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 29-01-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 27-02-2019 directed the CPIO to re-examined and sent a reply 10 working days. Thereafter the appellant has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through video-call. The respondent, Shri Umesh Srivastava, US (Vig.)/ CPIO, attended the hearing through audio - call.
4. The appellant submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI Application and submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondents on his RTI applications as mentioned above. He further contended that the annual reports of CPSEs prepared by the M/o. Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, are tabled in both the houses of the parliament by the Ministry itself and not by the different CPSEs. Hence the information sought is available with the M/o. Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, and that they Page 2 of 6 are wasting public funds in transferring his RTI applications to unrelated parties which clearly amounts to willful obstruction in the flow of information.
6. The respondents while reiterating the replies of the CPIO/ FAA submitted that the appellant is seeking information pertaining to various reports such as the annual report, Board Report, Corporate Governance Reports, CAGs reports, auditors reports, and other details etc., amounts to information pertaining to various ministries/ public authorities. As regards to second appeal no. CIC/DOHIN/A/2020/668787, they have forwarded the RTI application with regards to point no. a & b to the Rajya Sabha Sectt. While with regards to other points of the RTI application a point wise reply has been furnished to the appellant. With regards to second appeal no. CIC/DOHIN/A/2020/668792, the CPIO vide letter dated 07.11.2019 informed the appellant that the information sought is NIL.
7. Since queries in all the matters are same, they are being heard and adjudicated together.
Decision:
8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant is seeking information pertaining to various reports such as the annual report, CAGs reports, comments on auditors reports, CAG reports, Directors Responsibility Statements, Corporate Governance norms etc and other details and schedules thereto etc., pertaining to all CPSEs under the public authority which he claims are not available in their websites along with other related issues. The Commission further observes that most of the queries of the appellant are situational based and the appellant is seeking various reports such as CAGs reports, comments on auditor's reports, CAG reports, Directors Responsibility Statements, or the CPSE or the period for which they are being sought for. By general description the appellant is expecting the CPIO to interpret his queries both in terms of quantifying and identifying all possible reports which are generated in compliance of various Acts, Rules guidelines etc. But the CPIO is not supposed to make interpretation of general queries, to make opinion and identify specific information or to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification; or to compile or collate information in a specific manner under the ambit of the RTI Act. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expect to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. From plain reading many reports such as board minutes, audit reports etc., are Page 3 of 6 internal to the functioning of CPSEs which are independent public authorities and could have been sought from them.
9. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"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."
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making 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' n 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he Page 4 of 6 cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
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."
10. While examining the RTI applications the Commission further observes that the annual report prepared by the M/o. Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises is tabled before both the houses of the parliament by the Ministry itself and not by the different CPSEs. The Commission is also of the opinion that this is the legal position of tabling the annual report before both the houses of the parliament. Hence if the Ministry is performing this task with the assistance of different CPSEs then also the Ministry is the real custodian of information. However the Commission observes that in second appeal no. CIC/DOHIN/A/2020/668787, they have forwarded the RTI application with regards to point no. a & b to the Rajya Sabha Sectt. While in second appeal no. CIC/DOHIN/A/2020/668792, the FAA in his order directed the CPIO to re- examined and sent a reply 10 working days. The Commission therefore, cautions the then CPIO, Shri. Sanjiv Kumar Gupta, to remain more vigilant while replying the RTI applications, as the information sought in these RTI application is sought from the Ministry and was not limited to their section.
11. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances the Commission, therefore directs the concerned CPIO, M/o. Heavy Industry and Public Enterprises to furnish the specific web link address to access the annual reports for each of the CPSEs working under them to the appellant so that he may draw his own inference. In case such information is not readily available or is not maintained by the respondent in public domain the certified copies of the same may be furnished to the appellant on admissible charges as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The abovementioned directions should be complied by the respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to this Commission.
Page 5 of 612. With the above observations, both the appeals are disposed of.
13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 31-12-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
M/o. Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises,
Department of Heavy Industry, PE-XI Section,
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
2. Mr. T.V. Sundaresan
Page 6 of 6