Central Information Commission
Sukhen Halder vs Geological Survey Of India on 30 November, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/GSIND/A/2020/113056
Mr. Sukhen Halder ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
M/o. Mines, Geological Survey of
India, 27 JLN Road, Kolkata-
700016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 26-11-2019 FA : 10-01-2020 SA : 20-03-2020
CPIO : Not on Records FAO : Not on record Hearing: 29-11-2021
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. Mines, Geological Survey of India, Kolkata. The appellant seeking information on various points including inter-alia is as under:-
"What action has been taken by the Director General/GSl/CHQ/27, J.L. Nehru Road/Kolkata-16 on my representation dated 01.11.2019 mentioned above under reference regarding the payment of arrears fixing pay in the 5th CPC upgraded scale of pay of Rs. 5000/- -8000/-?"
2. No reply of CPIO is placed on records. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 10-01-2020 on ground that no response has been received within the specified time-limit and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO is not placed on records. He Page 1 of 4 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 attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Dr. Ranjit Kumar Singh, CPIO/ Deputy Director attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 22.11.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 26.11.2019. He further submitted that a copy of written submission has not been provided by the respondent. He is further insisting on redressal of his grievances.
6. The respondent submitted that on receipt of the RTI request, the same was acknowledged and forwarded to the concerned information holding authority of GSI, CHQ for supply of information by the then CPIO on 12.12.2019. Since the relevant information could not be provided within stipulated time-frame, the appellant has filed first appeal. Meanwhile, the information sought for was received from the concerned authority and the same was supplied to the appellant vide their office letter dated 09.01.2020.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought action taken by the Director General on his representation dated 01.11.2019. That the information sought by the appellant is in the form of query/ question, still in the spirit of the RTI Act, the respondent has provided relevant information to the appellant as received from the concerned authority vide letter dated 09.01.2020.
That seeking information in the form of questions is not maintainable under the RTI Act. That the CPIO is not expected to answer the question under the RTI Act. It has been observed that the CPIO is not supposed to reply to the question, create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant 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 Page 2 of 4 in the manner as sought by the appellant. 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.
8. In this regard, the Commission referred 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 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' 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."
9. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the opinion that the relevant information as per available records has already been provided by the respondent vide letter dated 09.01.2020. Further, the appellant is having a grievance related to the payment of his arrears, therefore the Commission suggests him to approach an alternative platform for redressal of his grievance.
10. Moreover, since a copy of written submission has not been provided to the appellant; therefore the Commission deems it fit to direct the respondent to send a copy of their written submission dated 22.11.2021 to the appellant by speed post within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 3 of 412. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 29-11-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस#यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
M/o. Mines,
Geological Survey of India,
27 JLN Road, Kolkata-700016
2. Mr. Sukhen Halder
Page 4 of 4