Central Information Commission
Meena Pandey vs National Thermal Power Corporation ... on 2 March, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/NTPCO/A/2022/126332
Meena Pandey अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
NTPC Ltd., RTI Cell,
Engineering Office Complex, R
& D Building, Room No.25,
Sector-24, Noida, U.P-201301 ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/03/2023
Date of Decision : 01/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01/02/2022
CPIO replied on : 03/03/2022
First appeal filed on : 02/04/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 25/04/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26/05/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.02.2022 seeking the following information:
"The undersigned seeks the following information pertaining to your department with regard to the, Gazette Notification No.S.O.763 (E), dated 14.09.1999 issued by MoEF, GOI regarding utilization of Fly Ash.1
1. Point no.6 of the notification: Copy of the annual separate account for the amount collected from sale of Fly Ash and expenditure (detail), for the year 2010- 11 to 2020-21, for all the Thermal Power Plants of NTPC.
Kindly issue me the information and photocopies of all the documents pertaining to the above-mentioned queries under the right to information act."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 03.03.2023 stating as under:
"Details of amount collected from sale of fly ash/ ash products and expenditure under schedule heads are appearing in the financial statements of the Company which Is already available in public domain, ever since the sale of fly ash related activities are being accounted for in the books of accounts of NTPC. The amount of sale, expenses relating to ash utilization can be seen under Fly ash utilization reserve fund under other equity of the financial statements as available In the Annual Report the Company for respective years. One has to go to NTPC Website at https://www.ntpc.co.in/en/investors/financial-results/annual-reports-0 Annual Report -select year then Index -Standalone Financial Statements - Other. Equity - Fly ash utilisation reserve fund."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.04.2022. FAA's order, dated 25.04.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Shantimoy Nandan, AGM cum CPIO along Vikash Kumar, DGM and Sumit Goyal, Sr. Manager present through intra-video conference.
The Appellant expressed her dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply on the following arguments -
"...This separate account is mandatory to be maintained and submitted by all the TPP's including NTPC to the SPCBs. CPIO in his reply have given the link of the website of the NTPC where such information are available. I could not find the information online...."
She further contested the fact that the weblink provided by the CPIO contains the entire records of their annual report from where it is difficult to cull out the exact 2 data of the annual separate account for the amount collected from sale of Fly Ash and expenditure (detail), for the years 2010-11 to 2020-21, for all the Thermal Power Plants of NTPC.
Sumit Goyal, Sr. Manager and Rep. of CPIO submitted that a reply by inviting attention of the Appellant towards specific hyperlink reflecting details of annual report has already been provided in response to RTI Application. The annual report in itself is self-explanatory about the details of amount collected from sale of Fly Ash and expenditure (detail), for the years 2010-11 to 2020-21, for all the Thermal Power Plants of NTPC. At the behest of the Commission, the CPIO agreed to provide a copy of the relevant extracts of annual reports along with relevant page number which may suffices the information sought by the Appellant. The Appellant interjected to contest the data/ figures detailed in the annual reports of NTPC questioning that details of amount collected from sale of Fly Ash and expenditure are not being depicted separately in the corpus fund's details. In this regard, the Commission counseled the Appellant that the information as available with NTPC has been provided in the Annual reports and that clarifications as sought from the CPIO do not fall under the ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act per se.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of both the parties finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO at first instance as it was in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
Adverting to Appellant's insistence seeking clarifications as to the non-availability of separate data/ information pertaining to the details of amount collected from sale of Fly Ash and expenditure not being depicted separately in the corpus fund's details in the annual reports of NTPC, it shall be noted that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
Her attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and 3 existing.........A public authority is also 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. 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." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors.
[SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....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...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
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 4 authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of relevant extracts of their annual reports containing the details annual separate account for the amount collected from sale of Fly Ash and expenditure (detail), for the years 2010-11 to 2020-21, for all the Thermal Power Plants of NTPC.
The above said information should be provided by the CPIO, free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5