Central Information Commission
Ashish Kumar Gupta vs National Institute Of Open Schooling on 3 September, 2021
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/NIOPS/A/2020/112912
Ashish Kumar Gupta ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Institute of Open
Schooling, RTI Cell, A-31,
Institutional Area, Sec62,
Noida 201309, UP. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01/09/2021
Date of Decision : 01/09/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09/01/2020
CPIO replied on : 27/01/2020
First appeal filed on : 30/01/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Nil
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.01.2020 seeking the following information;
The CPIO replied to the Appellant on 27.01.2020 stating as under -
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.01.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non receipt of desired information from the CPIO till date and also FAA has disposed of his First Appeal without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Mamta Srivastava, Regional Director & CPIO present through audio- conference.2
The Appellant at the outset narrated his grievance regarding wrong marking of his absence in the practical exam despite the fact he had appeared in the practical exams for 'Data Entry Operator' and had duly submitted his TMA .
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant inputs has already been provided to the Appellant. She further apprised the Commission that the Appellant has now been declared successful in his exams and his marksheet in this regard has already been processed by the NIOS.
Decision:
The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the information sought for at points no. 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 of RTI Application do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has sought clarifications from the CPIO based on his interrogatories, yet the CPIO has provided a factual point wise reply to assist the Appellant by keeping in line with the letter and spirit of RTI Act. In this regard, 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.
His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of 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 existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of 3 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) It is also pertinent to note that the details of the officers as sought for at point no. 6 of RTI Application stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the reply given by the CPIO adequately suffices the information sought for at point no. 2 as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Now, considering the prayer of Appellant, the limited scope of relief lies on point no. 4 wherein the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of the relevant available information as sought for, free of cost to the Appellant. The said direction shall be complied by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Lastly, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advise him to pursue his matter through proper channel for redressal of his grievance.
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 / 4