Central Information Commission
Ashutosh Gautam vs Central Information Commission on 16 January, 2023
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 Nos. CIC/CICOM/A/2021/662231
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/CICOM/C/2020/662210
Mr. Ashutosh Gautam ... अपीलकता/Appellant
....Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Central Information Commission
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
New Delhi-110067
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal/complaint:-
SA & Complaint
RTI : 21-09-2019 FA : 22-10-2019
: 03-02-2020
CPIO : 27-09-2019 FAO : 09-12-2019 Hearing : 29-12-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant/complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Information Commission, New Delhi. The appellant/complainant is seeking information on various points including inter- alia is as under :-
Page 1 of 72. The CPIO vide letter dated 27-09-2019 has given reply to the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant had filed first appeal dated 22-10- 2019 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide order dated 09-12-2019 the CPIO, RTI Cell is directed to furnish the information if in available in his custody within 15 days of receipt order of decision and disposed the appeal. He 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/complainant was not present in the hearing. The respondent, Shri Sharad Kumar, DR, Shri Babu Lal, SO, Shri Devender Kumar, SO, Shri Chandan Kumar, ASO, Shri B S Kasana, DR, Shri S C Sharma, DR and Shri A K Assija, DR were personally present in the hearing.
4. The appellant/complainant vide his e-mail has requested for adjournment in the above mentioned cases. The request of the appellant/complainant cannot be adhered to.
5. The respondent is agreed for adjudication of both the cases together, as the subject-matter is identical in nature.
6. The respondent submitted that w.r.t the information sought by the appellant/complainant in Box A as mentioned in the RTI application, the reply/information on point nos. 1 to 3 was provided to him vide letter dated 15.10.2019. On point nos. 4 and 5, reply/information was provided on 07.09.2022. On point nos. 6 to 8, reply/information was provided to the appellant/complainant on 26.06.2019 and 31.10.2019. On point nos. 9(a) to (d) and 10 (1) to (4), reply/information was provided to him on 17.12.2019. On point no. 11, reply was provided to the appellant/complainant on 09.10.2019. On point no. 12, reply was given vide letter dated 15.10.2019. The respondent further Page 2 of 7 submitted that w.r.t information sought by the appellant/complainant in Box B and Box C as mentioned in the RTI application, the reply/information was provided to him vide letter dated 09.10.2019. The respondent further submitted that they have also complied the directions given by the FAA and again sent the reply/information on point no. 8 of Box B vide their letter dated 13.07.2020. The replies were seen during the hearing, which were seen during the hearing.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the respondent has provided complete point-wise reply/information to the appellant/complainant on his above mentioned RTI application as per the documents available on record and as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
8. Therefore, there are no sufficient ground to take action against the respondent under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Therefore, no case of penalty has been made out, as the respondent has not obstructed any information with malafide intention.
9. The Commission further observes that the appellant/complainant is seeking information on multiple issues in one RTI Application. The Commission observes that the appellant/complainant has sought unrelated information in each point which is not appreciated in the spirit of the RTI Act. The appellant/complainant is supposed to seek specific query/ information as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission further observed that some queries of the appellant/complainant are situational based queries on different subject-matters and the queries are non-specific and general in nature. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant/complainant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant/complainant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
10. 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 Page 3 of 7 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 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 Page 4 of 7 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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs 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 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."
11. The Commission further observed that the appellant/complainant has sought voluminous information related to the functioning of the public authority. The information sought is voluminous in nature and may not be readily available with the CPIO in the manner as sought by the appellant/complainant, collating and compiling of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Hence, the disclosure of information is exempted as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to Page 5 of 7 transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
12. The Commission further observed that in Shail Sahni Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 845 of 2014, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that "misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law."
13. In view of the above matrix, the Commission is of the opinion that though the queries of the appellant/complainant are not supposed to be dealt with as per the provisions of the RTI Act and the reply of the CPIO and FAA are being upheld by the Commission.
Page 6 of 714. The appellant/complainant is aggrieved with the old decisions of the Commission and instead of filing non-compliance petitions/judicial recourse, the appellant/complainant had filed multiple RTI applications and now when the cases are listed he is not bothered to contest his cases and sought adjournment in the present cases twice. The request of the appellant/complainant w.r.t adjournment cannot be adhered to. He is advised to approach appropriate forum in order to resolve his grievances.
15. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
16. With the above observations, the complaint and appeal are disposed of.
17. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date : 13.01.2023 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Central Information Commission Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka New Delhi-110067
2. Mr. Ashutosh Gautam Page 7 of 7