Central Information Commission
Mrm Subbaiah vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 8 January, 2015
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000139
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 8th January 2015
Date of decision : 8th January 2015
Name of the Appellant : Shri M Subbaiah,
156/43, 44, Bharathi IIIam, Mangammal
Salai, Elumalai, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai
District, Tamil Nadu
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Central Warehousing Corporation,
4/1, Siri Institutional Area, August Kranti
Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110 016
The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Madurai.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in person:
1. Shri Pawan Kant, CPIO.
2. Shri D. V. Singh, SAM (RTI).
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 2.5.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on eight points regarding benevolent trust. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he filed second appeal dated 7.12.2013 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 9.1.2014.
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000139
2. The Appellant submitted that he has not received information in response to points No. 5 to 8 of his application. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant has mentioned a grievance at points No. 5 and 6 and sought explanation at points No. 7 and 8, which are beyond the ambit of the RTI Act. The Respondents further submitted that they are willing to allow inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant at their Corporate Office in Delhi. The Appellant expressed his inability to travel to Delhi for inspection of the records.
3. We have considered the records and the submissions made before us by both the parties. We note that at points No. 5 and 6, the Appellant wanted to know the names of officials responsible for the delay in creation of benevolent fund and its implementation. Further, he sought explanation / opinion of the CPIO at points No. 7 and 8, which does not fall within the ambit of information as defined under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. had observed that "A public authority is 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."
4. In view of the foregoing, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant copies of documents, if any, available on the records of the Respondents, in response to points No. 5 and 6 of the RTI application, free of cost. If no such documents are available, a specific reply in this regard should be sent to the Appellant. Action on our above directives should be completed within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000139
5. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000139