Central Information Commission
Amitava Roy vs Central Information Commission on 14 November, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/614768 +
CIC/CICOM/A/2023/614294 +
CIC/CICOM/A/2023/614233 +
CIC/CICOM/A/2023/611557 +
CIC/CICOM/A/2023/605134
Amitava Roy ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Central Information
Commission, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 614768 21.12.2022 17.01.2023 21.01.2023 17.02.2023 NIL
2. 614294 26.12.2022 18.01.2023 20.01.2023 17.02.2023 NIL
3. 614233 19.02.2023 20.02.2023 23.02.2023 16.03.2023 NIL
4. 611557 05.12.2022 30.12.2022 03.01.2023 24.01.2023 NIL
5. 605134 25.09.2022 19.10.2022 23.10.2022 18.11.2022 NIL
Note: The instant appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
subject matter and grounds of appeal.
Date of Hearing: 07.11.2024
Date of Decision: 12.11.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Page 1 of 15
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/614768
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"In view of the attached letter No: - F.No.052/RKM/VLYA/RTI/2022/8072-73, dated 20.08.2022 issued by the Secretary, Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya (Aided by Govt. of Tripura) clearly mentioned in his official letter head of Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya (Aided by Govt. of Tripura) that -We therefore assert that the RTI Act is not applicable to us. In view of the above, as per u/s 6(1) Subject to the provisions of the RTI Act 2005, Kindly
(i) Provide me the information or supporting document/documents regarding the applicability of Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya (Aided by Government of Tripura) located at Viveknagar, Amtali, Agartala, Tripura (West), Pin: -799130.
(ii) Provide me the information or supporting document/documents regarding the applicability of Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Ramakrishna Mission Pvt.
Industrial Training Institute (Aided by Government of Tripura) located at Viveknagar, Amtali, Agartala, Tripura (West), Pin: -799130."
1.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Desired information is not available in CIC. Kindly approach concerned Public Authority. Your matter is related to State Govt. Kindly file RTI application in concerned department directly as per para 3 (iv) of DoPTs OM No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12.06.2008 available in public domain"
1.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.01.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false Page 2 of 15 and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 17.02.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/614294
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Provide me the information or supporting document/ documents regarding the name of the present Tripura State Chief Information Commissioner appointed by the Honorable Governor of Tripura as per u/s 15(3) Subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 with his date of joining service.
(ii) Provide me with the information about who is now performing the duties assigned to the Tripura State Chief Information Commissioner.
2.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Desired information is not available in CIC. As your matter pertains to State Govt. Kindly file RTI application in concerned department directly as per para 3 (iv) of DoPTs OM No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12.06.2008 available in public domain."
2.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 17.02.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Page 3 of 15Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/614233
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:
"In pursuance to my appeal no- CICOM/A/E/23/00043 (Copy attached) the FAA clearly mentioned in his/her ORDER dated 17.02.2023 that -As per the Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 it is the duty of the applicant to file information request with the concerned Public Authority which holds the information. But as per u/s 6(1) subject to the provisions of the RTI Act 2005 -A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to (a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority (b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her, Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing. Moreover, as per u/s 6(2) & 6(3) Subject to the provisions of the RTI Act 2005 (2) An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him. (3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information, (i) which is held by another public authority or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer, Provided that the Page 4 of 15 transfer of an application pursuant to this sub section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application.
However, in view of the above, as per u/s 6(1) Subject to the provisions of RTI Act 2005, kindly Provide me the copy of the page/document about the provision of the RTI Act 2005 on which it is specifically written that -it is the duty of the applicant to file information request with the concerned Public Authority which holds the information as mentioned by the FAA in his or her said Order."
3.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.02.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"For Desired information kindly go through the Section 6 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 available in CIC website link https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/RTI-Act_English.pdf No other information is available on record."
3.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.02.2023. The FAA vide order dated 16.03.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/611557
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"About whether the Honorable Information Commissioner did not fulfill his own said order himself or the 15 days were not completed between 12.10.2021 to 19.10.2022.
(i) Regarding the full communication address of the authority /commission/ any Government /any organization/ any peoples representative to whom a limited knowledgeable Indian Citizen like me may lodge a complaint/ appeal petition Page 5 of 15 on account of the Honorable Information commissioners non- fulfillment of his own order.
(ii) Regarding the u/s Subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in respect of which compensation regarding detriment suffered by me as per u/s 19(8)(b) Subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 does not possible to provide in respect of my written prayer of complaint regarding Non Compliance, dated 23.06.2022, on which I was clearly mentioned that-Please take necessary action as early as possible as the said order is given by The Information Commissioner.
(iii) If no such information or supporting document/ documents or u/s Subject to the provisions of the RTI ACT 2005 is available, then provide me with the information to whom the complaint against the Central Information Commission authority can be made for the violation of the RTI Act 2005."
4.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.12.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Reply to point No. 1-As per section 2(f) of RTI Act, the query raised by you does not fall within the definition of information. In terms of the previsions of the RTI Act- 2005, the CPIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret the information or to solve the problems raised by the Appellant or to furnish replies to situational queries or to furnish reply to clarifications.
Reply to point No. 2- Not available on record. Nevertheless, the address of Central Information Commission is के ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067 Page 6 of 15 Reply to point No.3- The same information is being sought repeatedly. The factual position has already been conveyed vide reply dated 19.10.2022 to your previous RTI application that in view of no reply from the respondent, the case stands approved by the Honourable Information Commissioner to be enlisted for hearing under section 20 of RTI Act for Non-compliance of the commission's order.
Reply to point No.4 - Not available on record. Nevertheless, if any party is not satisfied with the decision of the Commission, the appeal may be filed before the Honourable High Court of India."
4.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 24.01.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/605134
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Provide me a copy of the written explanation along with all supporting documents submitted by the said CPIO in terms of the Information Commissioner order, dated 12.10.2021.
(ii) Provide me the information or supporting document/documents of the action taken by the Information Commissioner after receiving written explanation from the said CPIO as per u/s 20 Subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 as mentioned in his order, dated 12.10.2021.
(iii) Provide me a copy of the written statement submitted by the said CPIO in terms of the Dy Registrar order, dated 18.07.2022.Page 7 of 15
(iv) Provide me the information or supporting document/documents of the action taken by the Dy Registrar after receiving the written statement from the said CPIO as per his order, dated 18.07.2022."
5.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Reply to point 1-Not available on record Reply to point 2-Not available on record Reply to point 3-Not available on record Reply to point 4-In view of no reply from the respondent, the case is approved by Honourable Information Commissioner to be enlisted for hearing under section 20 0f the RTI Act, which would be enlisted for hearing in due course of time."
5.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated 18.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
6. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Suman Bala, DS & CPIO, RTI Cell along with Col. Surinder Chhikara, DR & CPIO attended the hearing in person.
7. The Commission took on record the written submissions of the Appellant filed with respect to each of the case under reference, however, a common submission in all the cases was as under:
Page 8 of 15"Provide me with the information as per u/s 19(3), u/s 19(1), u/s 19(6), u/s 6(1) & u/s 6(2) subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 that I sought in my said RTI Petition.
Again, it wouldn't be out of context to mention that in last few months CIC Authority has issued several ORDER'S w.r.t my submitted second appeal petitions vide appeal No:- CIC/SBIND/A/2022/643131, CIC/NITAT/A/2022/654516, CIC/DHEDU/A/2022/65003, CIC/POSTS/A/2022/652916 etc., but, it is quite surprising that due to some unknown reason/s the Hon'ble Information Commissioner doesn't consider my written submissions/ prefers to maintain silence/ has not taken any action/ not even mentioned a single word from my said written submissions/ not even cautioned the respective FAA & CPIO for violation the guidelines mentioned in the RTI Act during issuing his/her valuable ORDER.
This clearly transpires that the Hon'ble Information Commissioner being working in an Administrative Tribunal/ Quasi-judicial Authority like CIC did not follow the Principle of Natural Justice or Article 14 of our Indian Constitution while issuing his/her said ORDER.
As per my limited knowledge, if the Hon'ble information Commissioner just issue an ORDER without taking any action as per u/s 18(1)/ 20(1)/ 20(2)/ 19(8)(b) Subject to the provisions of the RTI Act 2005 even after mentioned by the petitioner like me in his/her Second Appeal petitions & Written Submissions respectively, then the trust/confidence/ belief of the citizens of India will be lost in future from the RTI Act, 2005."
Further, the case specific arguments tendered by the Appellant appear to lack coherence or relevance, as for instance, some of his contentions with respect to these cases is stated hereunder:
CIC/CICOM/A/2023/614768 "iii. My queries were related to the applicability of the RTI Act 2005 regarding an Institute named Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya (Aided by Govt. of Tripura).Page 9 of 15
iv. RTI Applicability has to be decided in the light of the statutory definition of the term of the RTI Act 2005 & I hope CIC Authority also follows the same RTI Act 2005.
v. I want to know the applicability of the said RTI Act 2005 to the said Institute as per CIC in the light of the said statutory definition of the term of the RTI Act 2005.
vi. As per my limited knowledge I think my queries have no relation with State Government Tripura as because the State Government Tripura also follows the same RTI Act as like the CIC Authority."
CIC/CICOM/A/2023/614294 "iii. My RTI Petition query is related to the name of the Hon'ble Tripura State Chief Information Commissioner & also related to the person who is now performing the duties assigned to the Hon'ble Tripura State Chief Information Commissioner.
iv. As an example, if my query was related to the name of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tripura , at least then I hope CIC authority should not reply to me like that "As your matter pertains to State Govt. Kindly file RTI application in concerned department directly".
v. I think due to busy schedules, the respected CPIO forgets that he/she is also a Public Servant working under a Public Authority on which there is also a human being present as designated by Hon'ble Information Commissioner.
vi. Moreover the same CIC authority in pursuance to my several RTI complaints transferred my RTI Complaint petitions addressed to the Secretary, Tripura Information commission for necessary action from their end (Copy already attached with my First Appeal Petition).
vii. It is quite surprising that without knowing the said fact how the CIC Authority can transfer my several complaints specifically/directly addressed to the Secretary, Tripura Information commission, Government of Tripura for necessary action.."Page 10 of 15
CIC/CICOM/A/2023/614233 "But, surprisingly in response to my RTI Petition the CPIO replied me that "For Desired information kindly go through the Section 6 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 available in CIC website link https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/ RTIAct_English.pdf". v. Now after scrutiny, I did not find the said statement on the above mentioned link provided by the said CPIO. vi. Moreover the said CPIO also written that "No other information is available on record."
CIC/CICOM/A/2023/611557 "Respected Sir/Madam, as per my limited knowledge the reply of my query may be like that either "Honorable Information Commissioner fulfills his own said order "or "Honorable Information Commissioner did not fulfill his own said order".
iv. In view of the above, still, I am not able to understand how the new information has to be created by writing the above line as mentioned by the said respected CPIO.
v. This clearly transpires that the said CPIO tries his best to conceal information & mislead me in response to my RTI petition.
vi. In response to my Query No:-3, the respected CPIO surprisingly again replied to me that "the case is approved by the Honorable Information Commissioner to be enlisted for hearing under section 20 0f the RTI Act".
vii. But again I repeat, in my complaint regarding Non Compliance, dated 23.06.2022 with respect to the said order, I was clearly mentioned that-Please take necessary action as early as possible as the said order is given by the Honorable Information Commissioner. But, Surprisingly due to some unknown reason till date the CIC authority did not mention anywhere regarding the u/s 19(8)(b) Subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to compensate me due to the detriment suffered by me since 2019."
8. The CPIO(s) reiterated the replies provided to the RTI Application(s) and submitted that there is nothing further to add in the matter.
Page 11 of 159. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that through the instant set of cases, the Appellant is channelizing his grievance against the disposal of his previous RTI Applications/First & Second Appeal(s). It is pertinent to note that except for the information sought for in Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/605134, none of the other RTI Application(s) seek information as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and in Second Appeal Nos. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/614768 and CIC/CICOM/A/2023/614294, the Appellant insisting on the Respondent to provide information regarding entities under the State Govt. of Tripura is found to be a rather frivolous request for information. Nonetheless, the concerned CPIO have provided appropriate reply to the Appellant in all the cases.
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 was held as under:
Page 12 of 15"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) 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.Page 13 of 15
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)
10. Having observed as above, no relief or order of compensation to be paid to the Appellant is warranted in this matter. Rather, the Appellant is advised to exercise his right to information judiciously in the future and to channelize grievances, if any, through proper channel.
11. The Appeal(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 12.11.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 14 of 15 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Central Information Commission, CPIO, RTI Cell, Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067
2. Amitava Roy Page 15 of 15 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)