ACR - CIC empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue the matter through proper channel - CIC: Respondent (Tis Hazari Court) to look at the online ACR system (SPARROW by NIC) with a view to adopt it for their own organization

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.12.20 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. seeking the following information:

“Sub: Request for providing information regarding ACR (from concerned ACR Cell) on Crash Priority Basis.

With reference to the ACR Preparation by the ACK Cell in Delhi District Courts, it is requested to provide the following information under RTI Act, as per law:

1.      What is the procedure of ACR preparation in Delhi District Courts for its all employees like Peon, JJA & JA.

2.      Provide the step-by-step preparation procedure of ACR gets prepared in Delhi District Courts.

3.      In Delhi District Courts which rules are being followed to fill the ACR for their employees.

4.      What is the fixed Time Schedule for filling, preparing and sending of ACRs in DDC.

5.      Provide the information in yes of no that DDC (Delhi District Courts) following the concerned guidelines, rules, norms and Judgements etc., of CAT passed in Judgement in Original Appeal 2008/2012, Applicant Sudhir Chopra Vs. Union of India & Ors. Is being followed or not, while preparing, filling, writing and sending all type of said concerned ACRs, or not.

6.      Provide the information in yes of no that DDC (Delhi District Courts) following the concerned guidelines, rules, directions of DOPT No.21011/1/2005- Estt.(A) (Pt-1) North Block, New Delhi, Dated:23rd July 2009 is being followed or not, while preparing, filling, writing and sending all type of said concerned ACRs or not.

7.      Provide the information in yes of no that DDC (Delhi District Courts) following the concerned guidelines, rules, norms and Judgements etc., of Case Devdett Vs. Union of India & Ors., passed in Civil Appeal No.7631 of 2002 off Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; are being followed or not, while preparing, filling, writing and sending all type of said concerned ACRs, or not.

8.      Up to which date and time, concerned officer/Ld. Reporting officer must have to fill an ACR as per above rules and whether all above rules mentioned in para 5 are mandatory to be followed for filling of an ACR or not.

9.      Upto which date and time an ACR of a particular time period/year should be filled and must be sent to the concerned official/officer as per rules.

10.  What is the liability of the concerned dealing official in these type of cases and in simple manner/cases of ACR too.

11.  Please provide the information that whether an applicant is liable and free to file all type of Civil and Criminal suits against all the concerned dealing officials/officers, if any concealment and conspiracy/Cr. Conspiracy are found in the above concerns.

12.  What are the liability and acts of a dealing official/officer of ACR cell, Delhi District Court, THC, Delhi.

13.  Whose duty is this to get the ACR filled in time and to get the ACR within prescribed time limit/period, is it the duty of concerned dealing official ?

14.  Please provide me a copy of the rule and order under which Annual Confidential Report is made in Delhi District Court.

15.  Please provide information whether the time schedule given in Annexure-lll of order of DOPT No.21011/1/2005-Estt.(A) (Pt-l) North Block, New Delhi, Dated:23rd July 2009 is followed while preparing or not.”

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.01.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 16.02.2023, held as under:

“In view of the above, it is evident that the requisite information has already been provided by the PIO to the appellant vide above-said letter dated 19.1.2023. It is pertinent to note here that the remaining information sought by the appellant could not have been furnished by the department as the same was mostly either not explicit /available or exempted to some extent u/s 8 (1) (e) & (j) of RTI Act or related to office internal process, rather too voluminous in nature and in questionnaire format. Further, the appellant should have at first instance, sought information under rule 9 (XIII) of Delhi District Courts (RTI Rules), 2008 by approaching the concerned Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, since the appellant is stated to be an employee of the department.

Thus, in view of the above discussion and observations, the present appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 filed on behalf of the appellant is devoid of any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.”

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Shri Ashok Sharma, SJA; Shri Brijesh Gupta, J.A. and Shri Satpal, J A present in person.

The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.

The Respondent, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of their written submissions, which are reproduced below:

“Before narrating the matter in hand at length, it is stated that the applicant/appellant had moved five applications of even date 20-12-20 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. received via different modes, one online in this office vide Reg. No. PDSJT/R/20 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. /60025 and other ones on transfer from the PIOs, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs, GNCT of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme court of India, respectively seeking similar /identical information which have been diarised in this office vide ID Nos. 12689,12695,12703,12705 & 12719 respectively under RTI Act-2005 before my predecessor Ms. Manju Bindra, the then Ld. PIO, seeking the information about multifarious information regarding preparation/procedure of ACR of the different cadres working in the establishment of Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, Delhi in questionnaire format with suffix/prefix "What, Whether, which, whose etc. with an intent of answer as "Yes, No" as well as regarding under which rule the process of ACR is carried out.

Further the then Ld. First Appellate Authority, RTL, Central, THC, Delhi had upheld the decision of the PIO and dismissed the First Appeal stating that appropriate Information has already been provided and nothing more survives in the present appeal.

Moreover, it is added that RTI is not about seeking answers and asking questions as held in case of Sh. Saidur Rehman Vs CIC (Appeal Nos, CIC/AA/A/2006/00032 &00034 dated 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. June.2007) and. In case of "D.V. Rao Vs Department of Legal Affairs (File No. CIC/At/A/2006/00045 dated 21-04- 2006 whereby it was held that RTI does not cast obligation to answer.queries. In which applicant attempts to elicit answers to question with prefixes such as "Why. What" When" and Whether

There are various decisions where it has been held that repeated RTI Applications should be liable to be rejected at once and disgruntled official/person should take recourse of appropriate remedy since RTI is not a proper law to redress the grievances, as held in various decisions. Commission/High Court/Supreme of Hon'ble Central Information Court viz.

(1) Yogesh Kumar vs. CPIO (CIC/DOP&T/A/2018/170564,

(2) Rakesh Kumar Vs. CPIO (Decision No. CIC/AB/A/2016/000337

(3) A K Vasudev Vs. CPIO (Decision No. CIC/DPCAF/A/2018/137 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. 0

(3) Sushil Kumar Chaurasiya Vs. CPIO (Decision No. CIC/FSSAI/A/2019/100684-BJ) whereby the references has also been given of the Judgements of the

Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011) and

decision of Hon'ble High Court at Goa in the matter or Dr. Celsa Pinto Vs. Goa State Information Commission (WP No. CIC/LICOI/A/2018/102357-BJ

(4) Piyush Thakkar Vs. CPIO ( decision No. 419 of 2007) etc. etc.

Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the reasons/clarification does not fall under the purview of 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; “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; “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; “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; of RTI Act-2005. The sought information is not a part of the record and as such the RTI Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority to collect or collate such non-available information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions.

The PIO is not supposed to have any material which is not before him. The public Authority cannot expect to communicate 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. Justification are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot be properly be classified as information.

The step-wise action is summarized as under:

(1) That the applicant/appellant has filed the RTI application in this office via online mode vide Reg. No. PDSJT/A/2023, dated 20-12-20 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. which was diarized vide ID No. 12689 for seeking multifarious information regarding preparation/procedure of ACR of the different cadres working in the establishment of Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, Delhi in questionnaire format with suffix/prefix "What, Whether, Whether, which, whose etc with an intent of answer as "Yes, No" as well as regarding under which rule the process of ACR is carried out.

(2) That after perusal of the instant RTI application, the information was sought for, from the Branch Incharge, ACR Cell vide this office letter dated 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. -12-20 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. .

(3) That the information was received from the aforesaid concerned quarter i.e. Branch Incharge, ACR Cell vide their communication dated 19-01-2023 and as per input, a letter dated 19-01-2023 was sent to the applicant by this office apprising as under:

"In reference to your five applications of even dated 20-12-20 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. received via different modes, one online in this office vide Reg. No. PDSJT/R/20 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. /20025 and other ones on transfer from the PIOS, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs, GNCT of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme court of India, respectively seeking similar /identical information which have been diarised in this office vide ID Nos. 12689,12695,12703,12705 & 12719 respectively under RTI Act-2005.

In this regard, the information/input received from the Branch In-charge, ACR Cell, THC, Delhi u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act-2005 is being enclosed herewith, which is self explanatory, for your information."

In this regard, it is state that the applicant had filed five applications via different modes received from the various Public Authorities, seeking thereby similar/identical multifarious information on various subject matters/aspects in questionnaire format which were duly responded to vide above quoted letter dated 19-01-2023 are mostly either not explicit/available or exempted to some extent under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; & (1) of RTI Act-2005 or relates to an office internal process, rather too voluminous in nature and in questionnaire format with prefix/suffix viz What, Which, Whether etc.

Moreover such type of information amounts to seek opinion in questionnaire format which does not fall u/s 2 (f) of RTI Act-2005 being office process. Further the information on specific aspects available in this office have already been communicated to him vide letter dated 16-01-2023 which is self explanatory, regarding office procedure of ACR in revert of his general application. Copy of which is annexed herewith,

Further the instant appeal does not reflect that from which information, he is aggrieved of. However, on first instance, the applicant may seek information u/r 9(XIII) of DDC(RTI) Rules-2008, approaching the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, THC, Delhi, since he is an employee of this office”

Upon being queried from the Commission, the Respondent submitted that the ACR of the Appellant is complete and up to date.

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the main premise of the instant second appeal is non-receipt of complete information under the RTI Act. On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that factual position in the matter has already been provided to the Appellant.

From the standpoint of RTI Act, the response of the Respondent provided is in spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question. Further, now at the stage of second appeal, the Respondent has placed on record a written submission before the Commission prior to the hearing.

For better understanding of the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of 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; “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; “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; “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; 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of 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; “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; “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; “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; 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………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) “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; “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; “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; “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; 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.”

As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:

"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."

While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013observed as under:

“20. …While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information “which is held by or under the control of any public authority”, the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority….”

In view of the above, no further relief can be granted in the matter. However, the Commission empathizes with the concern of the Appellant and advises him to pursue the matter through proper channel. The Respondent is also advised to have a look at the online ACR system called “SPARROW” developed by NIC with a view to adopt the same for their own officers/organization.

Further, the said written submission of the Respondent is being treated as a revised reply to the instant RTI application but the same was not shared with the Appellant. In view of this, the Respondent is directed to share a copy of their written submissions with the Appellant, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.

Moreover, the Appellant has chosen not to participate in the hearing to argue his case, despite the service of hearing notice in advance. In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further direction is required in this case.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: B B SHARMA v. Office of the Principal District & Session Judge, Tis Hazari Court, CIC/DSESJ/A/2023/610117; Date of Decision : 19-02-2024