Central Information Commission
Ankur Chaturvedi vs Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi on 4 October, 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/CPCBD/A/2023/623890
Ankur Chaturvedi ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun
Nagar, New Delhi-110032 .... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27/09/2023
Date of Decision : 27/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/03/2023
CPIO replied on : 17/04/2023
First appeal filed on : 26/04/2023
First Appellate Authority order : 12/05/2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16/05/2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.03.2022 seeking the following information:1
"1) Kindly advise if the Occupational Health Centers or First Aid Rooms inside a factory as mandated by the Factories Act 1948 and the related rules falls under the definition of Health Care Facility as per the Biomedical waste Management Rules 2016.
2) Kindly also confirm if the First Aid Centers and First Aid Points inside Shops and Establishments falls under the definition of Health Care Facility as per the Biomedical waste Management Rules 2016."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 17.04.2023 stating as under:
"This has reference to the above RTI application dated 24.03.2023 regarding the Occupational Health Centers or First Aid Rooms inside a factory as mandated by the Factories Act 1948 and the related rules falls under the definition of Health Care Facility as per the Biomedical Waste Management Rules 2016. In this regard, it is to inform that as per the Bio- Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 "bio-medical waste means any waste, which is generated during the diagnosis, treatment or immunisation of human beings or animals or research activities pertaining thereto or in the production or testing of biological or in health camps, including the categories mentioned in Schedule I appended to these rules.
Further, BMWM Rules, 2016 shall apply to all persons who generate, collect, receive, store, transport, treat, dispose, or handle bio medical waste in any form including hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, dispensaries, veterinary institutions, animal houses, pathological laboratories, blood banks, AYUSH hospitals, clinical establishments, research or educational institutions, health camps, medical or surgical camps, vaccination camps, blood donation camps, first aid rooms of schools, forensic laboratories and research labs."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.04.2023. FAA's order, dated 12.05.2023, held as under:
2"The CPIO is required to furnish only the information available in his or her custody. The same has already been provided."
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: V P Yadav, Director and Niralee Verma present in person.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date no information was provided to him by the Respondent, despite the fact that the information sought is in larger public interest.
The Respondent, during the hearing, submitted that vide their letter dated 17.04.2023, complete reply/information was provided to the Appellant on his RTI application wherein complete factual position was informed to the Appellant. The Respondent further submitted that the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the main premise of the instant appeal was non-receipt of desired information. The Commission observes that the CPIO has clarified the factual position in the matter wherein complete reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 17.04.2023.
The Commission is of the considered opinion that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. The CPIO can only provide information which is held by them in their records within the public authority.3
The Commission further observes that queries as sought by the Appellant in his RTI application are more in the nature of seeking explanation, opinion, advice from the CPIO. But the CPIO is not supposed to 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.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note 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. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(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;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is 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 washeld 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 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) 4 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 authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied 5 Nonetheless, the Appellant, during the hearing, raised certain issues which are in larger public interest and it will be in the best interest of Respondent Public Authority to explore the viability of updating FAQs Section on their website wherein a brief outline pertaining to the issues flagged by the Appellant regarding biomedical waste management, etc. can be easily identified and relevant information in that regard can be placed in the public domain in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record.
In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
Lastly, in the spirit of RTI Act, the CPIO is also directed to provide a revised reply to the Appellant free of cost 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 (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6