Central Information Commission
Mr.Sanjay Bhaty vs Kandla Port Trust on 29 October, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000622
Dated, the 29 October, 2010.
th
Appellant : Shri Sanjay Bhaty
Respondent : Kandla Port Trust
s This matter came up for hearing through videoconference (VC) on 26.10.2010 pursuant to Commission's notice dated 06.10.2010. Appellant was present at NIC VC facility at Kutch, while the respondents ― represented by Shri Suresh Kumar, PIO and Capt. B.Tewari, Appellate Authority ― were present at the same venue. Commission conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.
2. The purpose of this appeal is more about the cost of the information sought to be disclosed to the appellant by CPIO and whether disclosure should be in the form of documents or 'answers to the question' form. According to appellant's own statement and the Appellate Authority's order, the respondents are willing to provide to him the requested information through copies of the documents they hold in their control. Under Section 7(3), the CPIO is required to intimate to the requester an estimate of the cost/fees calculated as per the rules made in that regard. The keyword in Section 7(3) is "an estimate" meaning thereby any initial calculation of the likely cost of the documents to be provided to the applicant on the basis of his RTI application. The final amount payable is determined.
3. This appellant does not believe that CPIO had a responsibility to give him an estimate of the cost/fees payable for the documents to be provided to him as per his RTIapplication. According to him, CPIO has converted the RTI's law into a documentary request rather than request for disclosure of information. Appellant possibly believes that CIC_AT_A_2010_000622_M_44868.doc Page 1 of 3 CPIO should state the position in respect of each such RTIqueries without providing him the documents related thereto.
4. Under the RTI law, the right of the applicant to receive information is coextensive with the information as held or under the control of the public authority. That is to say, when an information is held in its original form, it is this original information which a requester shall be provided. A requester could not demand from the CPIO that he generate information from the documents held by him and provide it to the appellant. It has been held in several decisions of the Commission that the respondents were not required to glean information from their files and records, especially when the document relating to the information requested was available in original form. There was the great danger in CPIO providing to the appellant an information gleaning it from files and documents and this was that the CPIO made over in interpreting the information and thereby run into charges of providing to the appellant false or incorrect information.
5. Appellant claimed that it was his right to receive information in the form requested by him. This provision of Section 7(9) is to be read with Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, which states that information as held or under the control of the public authority, shall be provided. In other words, when an information is available in its original form in the records, and if it answers the applicant's queries, it is this information that shall be provided to the applicant.
6. That being so, a perusal of appellant's RTIapplication shows that parts of the information relate to communication of information as contained in the documents and files of the respondents. Other parts of the queries need to be replied to through documents they relate to.
7. It is accordingly directed that CPIO will give to the appellant, within two weeks, a formal reply in relation to each one of his queries. He shall also intimate to him the documents he wished to provide to him and the number of the pages of those documents relating to specific queries. The estimate of the cost of disclosing the information CIC_AT_A_2010_000622_M_44868.doc Page 2 of 3 under Section 7(3) shall be intimated to the appellant within two weeks. On receipt of the necessary fees for supply of documents, respondents will take action for its transmission within one week of the receipt of the payment.
8. Appeal disposed of with these directions
9. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER CIC_AT_A_2010_000622_M_44868.doc Page 3 of 3