Central Information Commission
Nirmal Goel vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 25 June, 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/MH&FW/A/2017/602599-BJ
Mr. Nirmal Goel
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Under Secretary
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
(INI - I Division), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.06.2019
Date of Decision : 25.06.2019
Date of RTI application 06.03.2017
CPIO's response 11.04.2017
Date of the First Appeal 19.04.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 02.05.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of the redevelopment of residential colonies at West Ansari Nagar and Ayur Vigyan Nagar campuses of AIIMS, New Delhi at a cost of Rs.4441 Crores in October 2016 by the cabinet and the certified copies of the cabinet decision and the material based on which the decision was taken including the final cabinet note containing the proposal of M/o Health and Family Welfare with all annexures/ appendices.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 11.04.2017, denied the disclosure of the information u/s 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 02.05.2017, concurred with the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Ms. Sunita Dhaundiyal, US;Page 1 of 3
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent while reiterating the submissions of the CPIO / FAA informed that the work of re-development of Cabinet approved proposal at West Ansari Nagar and Ayur Vigyan Nagar campuses of AIIMS, New Delhi has already begun and is under implementation.
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, 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) 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 ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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 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 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 Page 2 of 3 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."
With regard to the exemption u/s 8 (1) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission observed that as per the proviso to the said section, "the decisions of the Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision had been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:"
The Commission in this context also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of CPIO, Department of Personnel and Training vs. Central Information Commission and Ors. W.P. (C) 7360/2017 dated 28.08.2017 wherein it was held as under
"The proviso restricts the applicability of clause (i) not in the context of the width of the information covered but in the context of time. Thus, exemption from disclosure in relation to 'cabinet papers' would be available to the fullest extent by virtue of clause (i) till the relevant decisions pertaining to those cabinet papers are taken. It is clear that the legislative intention in enacting the first proviso to clause (i) is to remove the exemption available in totality, once the decision making process corresponding to the cabinet papers is complete. Thus, the applicability of clause (i) of Section 8(1) of the Act is confined only to the period when the cabinet papers are under consideration and not thereafter. Once the deliberations are over and the decisions have been taken, the subject information contained in the cabinet papers is no longer exempt from disclosure."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission instructs the Respondent to disclose the certified copy of the decision of the cabinet as sought in the RTI application alongwith the updated status of the work to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 25.06.2019
Page 3 of 3