Central Information Commission
V B Chauthe vs Department Of Posts on 31 May, 2020
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/163368
केन्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2018/163368
In the matter of:
V B Chauthe ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ...प्रनतिािीगण /Respondent
The Sr. Post Master,
Aurangabad
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 23.07.2018 FA : 27.08.2018 SA : 18.10.2018
CPIO : 20.08.2018 &
FAO : 29.09.2018 Hearing : 22.05.2020
12.05.2020
The following were present:
Page 1 of 6
CIC/POSTS/A/2018/163368
Appellant: Shri A A Khan, appellants Representative, heard over the phone
Respondent: Shri Sunil M. Koli, Sr. Post Master, Aurangabad, heard over the
phone
ORDER
Information Sought and Brief Facts:
The appellant sought information on three points regarding National monetary benefit to the postmen/Mail guards w.e.f 01.01.1996 to 10.10.1997 in the revised pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-, as granted vide the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 07.05.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 20102009, including,
a) What action has been taken since its receipt? Who is responsible for the unnecessary delay that occurred,
b) How much time will it take to implement the orders and to prepare the revised pension proposals of the respective postmen and submitting it to DA(P), Nagpur, and
c) In how many days the deducted amount from the postmen during the aforesaid period will be refunded?
The CPIO, vide letter dated 20.08.2018, denied information to the appellant, the same being outside the purview of the RTI Act. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed the First Appeal dated 27.08.2018. FAA, vide order dated 29.09.2018, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Page 2 of 6CIC/POSTS/A/2018/163368 The appellant filed second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by respondent. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is satisfied with the information provided to him by the respondent vide letter dated 12.05.2020 on point nos. 1 and 2 of his RTI application. However, no information has been provided to him on point no. 3 of RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete information sought for. In response to a query, he tendered his unconditional apology for filing repeated RTI applications seeking same information.
The respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application is clarificatory in nature, which does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Nonetheless, an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 12.05.2020. The respondent further submitted that the appellant vide letter dated 11.03.2020 was informed that his Fixation of Pay has been rechecked and found to be correct. He advised the appellant to file a representation in respect of the refund of amount, as stated in point no. 3 of his RTI application.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant vide his RTI application is seeking redressal of his grievance. Further, the information sought by the appellant vide his RTI application is clarificatory in nature, which is beyond the purview of the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission observes that at the outset it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such Page 3 of 6 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/163368 information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance, reasons for non compliance of rules/contesting the actions of the respondent public authority are outside the purview of the Act. The Commission notes that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. Goa State Information Commission (W.P. No. 419 of 2007, decision dated 03.04.2008) held as follows:
"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."
Nonetheless, an appropriate reply, as per the available records, has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. Thus, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Commission, also, notes that the appellant has filed repeated RTI applications seeking same information. In view of this, the Commission finds it pertinent to mention the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, (2011) 8 SCC497 wherein it was held as under:
"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 Page 4 of 6 CIC/POSTS/A/2018/163368 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 a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of The Registrar (Administration), High Court, Madras vs. Central Information Commission (W.P.No. 26781 of 2013) dated 17.09.2014 observed:
"28. In fact, the first respondent-Commission itself has deprecated the practice of the second respondent herein in overloading the Registry of this Court by making several queries or complaints one after another and following the same under the RTI Act. Having found that the action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest ........."
In view of the above, the Commission counsels the appellant to refrain from filing repeated RTI application seeking similar information thereby, preventing misuse of RTI Act.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Page 5 of 6CIC/POSTS/A/2018/163368 Amita Pandove (अमिता पाांडव) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) दिनांक / Date: 22.05.2020 Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणत सत्यावपत प्रनत) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Shri S V Pawar, The Sr. Post Master, Department of Posts, Auangabad, (MH) 431001
2. Shri V B Chauthe Page 6 of 6