Central Information Commission
Ravinder Kamboj vs Embassy Of India, Washington, Usa on 24 March, 2020
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 या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EIWUS/A/2018/623476
Ravinder Kamboj ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, M/o. External Affairs, New ... ितवादी/Respondent
Delhi-110011
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 17-04-2018 FA : 16-05-2018 SA:15-06-2018
CPIO : 15-05-2018 FAO : 13-06-2018 Hearing: 20-03-2020
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. External Affairs, New Delhi seeking information as follows:-
"1. Expenditure details of Embassy of India, Washington DC from 01.01.2018 to 31.01.2018 in following terms:-
(a) Name of work and date.
(b) Sanctioned fund for the work.
2. Total no. of VISA applications received by the Embassy of India, Washington DC from 01.01.2018 to 31.01.2018 including the gross revenue generated from the VISA fee."
2. The CPIO responded on 15-05-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 16-05-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 13-06- 2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Page 1 of 5Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Ravinder Kamboj did not attend the hearing. Ms. Deepa Jain, US(RTI) and Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, RTI Consultant participated in the hearing representing the respondent in person. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The respondent submitted that the queries raised by the appellant are not specific. Hence, this sort of queries are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Nonetheless, they have furnished the numerical figures of the total no. of applications along with the gross amount of fee received from the VISA application fee. Decision:
5. This Commission observes that the appellant has sought very wide and non- specific information for which the CPIO cannot be expected to analyse and interpret the documents in order to create the information in the manner sought by the appellant. This legal principle is supported by the decision dated 07-01-2016 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015 titled as The Registrar of Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K Batra & Ors., wherein, it was held as under:-
"15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, "right to information"
under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which it is sought by the applicant."
6. Therefore, the CPIO is not obliged to provide clarification and interpretation of the documents to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. This sort of queries seeking clarification from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers 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 Page 2 of 5 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 is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497, 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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Page 3 of 5 Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
7. Nonetheless, the CPIO has furnished the information to the appellant w.r.t. the numerical figures of the total no. of applications along with the gross amount of fee received from the VISA application fee vide letter dated 15-05-2018. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. 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 20-03-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
M/o. External Affairs, Under
Secretary & Nodal CPIO,
(RTI Cell), Room No.-2021, A-Wing,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Bhawan,
23-D, Janpath, New Delhi-110011
2. Ravinder Kamboj
Page 5 of 5