CIC: The Bombay High Court order does not pertain to stay on the information part of the RTI application; No merit in withholding the information - CIC: Provide the progress report, name & designation of the officials with whom the first appeal was lying
22 Feb, 2020O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), India Security Press, (SPMCIL), Nashik seeking information as follows:-
1. “Daily progress report from the date of receiving the first appeal vide Inward No. 3372 Dtd 29.12.15 till the date of this RTI.
2. Names & designations of officials with whom my first appeal was lying during this period and details of action taken by him/her.
3. Evidence of receipt and dispatch of my application in the offices of each of these officials.
4. Details of action taken by the controlling authority against erring employees, if employees have made dereliction to their official duty.
5. If no action has been initiated as above for Sno 4, reasons on record be made known to me, with name, designation and contact details of controlling authority of these employees. [Ref: section 4.1.d of RTI Act]
6. Details of action taken by the controlling authority against erring employees, if employees have made false averment before Hon'ble Court on an Affidavit.
7. If no action has been initiated as above for Sno 6, reasons on record be made known to me, with name, designation and contact details of controlling authority of these employees. [Ref: section 4.1.d of RTI Act].”
2. The CPIO responded on 09-05-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 15-05-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 06-06- 2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Varun Krishna attended the hearing in person. Mr. Sachin Soni, AM(HR) participated in the hearing representing the respondent through video conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that the PIO-ISP Nashik had made a false averment before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on affidavit in Writ Petition 7542/17 at point number 6 of page number 7 stating therein that his first appeal dated 23-12- 2015 was never received in their office whereas as per the inward no. 3370, it was received on 29-12-2015. Therefore, the respondent should be directed to provide him the progress report of the first appeal dated 23-12-2015 which was received on 29-12-2015. However, he admitted the possession of the dispatch receipt of the first appeal dated 23-12-2015.
5. The respondent submitted that the appellant has sought information with respect to certain allegation against the PIO-ISP Nashik alleging that he had made a false averment before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on affidavit in Writ Petition 7542/17 with regard to non-receipt of the first appeal dated 23-12-2015. They have denied this information relying on the exemption u/Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; on the premise that its disclosure would impede the process of prosecution before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
Decision:
6. This Commission observes that the appellant has made allegations against the PIO-ISP Nashik regarding false statement before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition 7542/17 in respect of non-receipt of the first appeal dated 23-12-2015. Thereafter, the appellant has sought information in light of this irregularity committed by the public authority. The respondent has referred to the order dated 13-01-2020 of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 7542 of 2017 whereby the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has stayed the direction passed by the CIC in the complaint no. CIC/MP/C/2016/000171-BJ-Adjunct dated 28/04/2017 (with regard to directing the CMD and the Joint Secretary (Currency), Department of Economic Affairs to conduct a detailed inquiry into the whole matter and submit its inquiry report to the Commission under intimation to the complainant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order) with the following observations:-
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the authority in the matter of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr. (supra), we are satisfied that the petitioners have made out a case for following order.
a) Admit.
b) Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus:
“(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the said order bearing File No. CIC/MP/C/2016/000171-BJ-Adjunct dated 28-04- 2017 passed by the Hon’ble Information Commissioner Mr. Bimal Julka of the Respondent No.1 on the Respondent No.2’s Complaint dated 28-05-2016 filed against the petitioners.”
7. From the foregoing, it is clear that the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court does not pertain to stay on the information part of the RTI application and thus, it relates to the direction of conducting a detailed inquiry into the whole matter and submission of inquiry report to the Commission. Therefore, this Commission does not find any merit in withholding the information. In view of the above, this Commission directs the respondent to provide the progress report, name and designation of the officials with whom the first appeal dated 23- 12-2015 was lying during the said period, if maintained, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. However, the CPIO cannot be expected to analyse and interpret the documents for creating the information in the manner sought by the appellant. This legal principle is supported by the decision dated 07- 01-2016 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015 titled as The Registrar of Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K Batra & Ors., wherein, it was held as under:-
“15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated; and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, “right to information” under Section 2(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which it is sought by the applicant.”
8. Further, this Commission observes that the queries raised by the appellant on point nos. 4 to 7 are in the nature of seeking clarification from the CPIO which is not covered within the definition of ‘information’ u/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, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of ‘information’ u/s 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, 2005 which is reproduced below:-
“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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 context, a reference is also made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497, wherein it was held as under:-
35..... “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.”
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
“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; -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.” 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.”
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Information Commissioner
Citation: Varun Krishna v. CPIO, India Security Press in Second Appeal No. CIC/ISPNR/A/2018/623420, Date of Decision: 13-02-2020