The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points whether the institute namely, Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), Navi Mumbai was recognized or approved by the AICTE for the Technician Engineers Courses (equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering), if so, year from which the approval was granted by AICTE and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 07.02.2017 stated that the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), Navi Mumbai was not under the approved list of AICTE. Hence, no information was available with them. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any is not on the record of the Commission.
Hearing:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant
:
Absent;
Respondent
:
Absent;
Both the parties remained absent during the hearing, despite prior intimation. Mr. Prapanchan, and Mr. Anupam, Network Engineers NIC studios of Chennai and Mumbai, respectively confirmed their absence. On perusal of the records it was observed that the CPIO had categorically responded to the queries raised by the Appellant.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) 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.”
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
“(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”
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in (2011) 8 SCC 497 (CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay), 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) 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.”
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. “…. Under the RTI Act “information” is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
“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.”
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed.”
7. “….the 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.”
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the documents available on record, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.