Date of Hearing : 15/03/2023 Date of Decision : 15/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21/12/2021 CPIO replied on : 18/01/2022 First appeal filed on : 12/02/2022 First Appellate Authority order : 11/03/2022 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09/06/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.12.2021 seeking the following information:
"
" Point No. 1. My Lord, humble applicant submits with utmost respect, that the reply dated 17-11-2021 given by the Learned CPIO,NALSA is true up to some
1
extent. However, the applicant would also like to know please provide a duly attested/certified copy of relevant record, which action has been taken by the Learned Competent Authority of NALSA in view of the following Supreme Court matters, as per Supporting document Page 1-18 -
(1) Grievance/Communication Inward No. 76335/SCI/PIL(E)/2021
(2) Grievance/Communication Inward No. 76336/SCI/PIL(E)/2021
(3) Grievance/Communication Inward No. 79282/SCI/PIL(E)/2021
(4) Grievance/Communication Inward No. 79283/SCI/PIL(E)/2021
(5) Grievance/Communication Inward No. 79285/SCI/PIL(E)/2021
(6) Grievance/Communication Inward No. 83545/SCI/PIL(E)/2021 (7)Grievance/Communication Inward No. 83548/SCI/PIL(E)/2021) (8)Grievance/Communication Inward No. 85504/SCI/PIL(E)/2021
(9) Grievance/Communication Inward No. 85505/SCI/PIL(E)/2021
(10) Grievance/Communication Inward No. 88910/SCI/PIL(E)/2021
(11) Grievance/Communication Inward No. 88911/SCI/PIL(E)/2021
(12) Grievance/Communication Inward No. 88913/SCI/PIL(E)/2021
(13) Grievance/Communication Inward No. 88914/SCI/PIL(E)/2021
(14) Grievance/Communication Inward No. 91546/SCI/PIL(E)/2021
(15) Grievance/Communication Inward No. 96364/SCI/PIL(E)/2021
(16) Grievance/Communication Inward No. 96365/SCI/PIL(E)/2021
(17) Grievance/Communication Inward No. 96366/SCI/PIL(E)/2021
(18) Grievance/Communication Inward No. 96368/SCI/PIL(E)/2021
Point No. 2. My Lord, please furnish the reason that in what circumstances the FAA, NALSA misinterpreted in Para No. 4 of their Order Dated 03.08.2021 as CPIO, NALSA, instead of CPIO, Supreme Court of India, as it is even clear so kindly see in details Supporting document Page 21-33.
Point No. 3. My Lord, please furnish the reason that in what circumstances the FAA,NALSA has ignored the relevant full Bench Judgment Dated 13- November- 2019 of the Honorable Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No. 10044-45 of 2010 and wrongly quoted the Supreme Court Judgment dated August 09, 2011 Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 Central Board of Secondary Education & vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors, in their Order Dated 23.11.2021 & 03.06.2021, kindly see Supporting document Page 38 & 43, which is not applicable in the instant case because the facts, findings, circumstances & the grievances of this case are entirely different namely there is a clear misleading statement given by the respondent-Bank Advocates to the Chief Justice Bench of the Supreme Court of India, as it is even clear so kindly see in details Supporting document Page 21-33 read with Page 1-20 & 45-47."
2
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 18.01.2022 stating as under:
"Point no.1: The grievances mentioned under this points at S. No. 1 to 7, 8 to 13 and 15 to 18 were sent to Supreme Court Legal Services Committee vide this Authority letter dated 15.11.2021, 22.12.2021 and 22.12.2021. Copies of these letters are also endorsed to you. The grievance mentioned at s.no 14, has not been received in this authority.
Point no. 2 and 3: the action has already been taken by the FAA, NALSA on these points. You are requested to take note of previous communications. The FAA, NALSA has also dealt and passed the order dated 07.09.2021 in this regard and same was also communicated to you."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.02.2022. FAA's order, dated 11.03.2022, held as under:
"A perusal of the record reflects that at the point no. 1 of the RTI application, the appellant sought the attested/certified copies of the relevant records on the action taken on his 18 grievances mentioned in point no. 1 by the Competent Authority of NAISA. In point no. 2 and 3, appellant sought reason in what circumstances the FAA, NALSA misinterpreted in Para no. 4 of his order dated 03.08.2021 as CPIO, NALSA instead of CPIO, Supreme Court of India and the reason in what circumstances, FAA, NALSA ignored the relevant full bench judgment dated 13.11.2019 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 10044-
45. With regard to point no. 1, the CPIO, NALSA informed the appellant that his letters were sent to Supreme Court Legal Services Committee vide this Authority's three letters dated 15.11.2021 and 22.12.2021 (two letters) except one grievance mentioned at Sr. No. 14 (Inward No. 91546/SCl/PIL(E)/2021) which was not received in the office of NALSA. Regarding point nos. 2 and 3, he was informed that action has already been taken by the FAA, NALSA on these points. He was further informed that FAA, NALSA dealt the same and passed the order dated 07.09.2021 which was communicated to him. He was requested to take note of the previous communications in this regard. In view of the above, the CPIO, NALSA is directed to send the certified/attested copies of the relevant record to the appellant.
It is pertinent to mention that earlier also, appellant sought modification of the order of FAA, NALSA dated 03.08.2021. The contention of the appellant qua modification of the order dated 03.08.2021 has already been decided by the FAA,
3
NALSA vide its order dated 07.09.2021. The Copy of order dated 07.09.2021 has also been communicated to appellant. Here, it is pertinent to mention that earlier also, Appellant filed two first appeals bearing registration nos. NI.SA'F/A/E/21/00051 and NLSAT/AJE/21/00052 on the same issues, the FAA. N A I .SA disposed of/dismissed them vide order dated 23.11.2021. This reflects that appellant has tiled numerous applications/RTI applications/RTI appeals, with various authorities including NALSA. Now, Appellant has raised some more issue which were not in the RTI application dated 21.12.2021. Appellant cannot seek more information other than the information sought in RTI application." Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Meena, Section Officer & CPIO present in person. The Appellant stated that the CPIO & FAA have 'misinterpreted' but no coherent argument was made as to what was being misinterpreted. He further merely reiterated the contents of points 2 & 3 of the RTI Application. The CPIO reiterated the original reply provided to the Appellant on 18.01.2022.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record is at a loss to comprehend the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the factual reply provided by the CPIO or the contents of points 2 & 3 of the RTI Application. It appears that the Appellant is harbouring a grievance and not seeking access to information as envisaged under the RTI Act.
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:
4
"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 washeld 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) 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)
5
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.
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
Similarly, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
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 has held as under:
"6. ….proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied)
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to
6
act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes." While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed 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…." (Emphasis Supplied) The Appellant is therefore advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future. He is further advised to pursue the grievances before the appropriate forum.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Saroj Punhani (सरोज पनुहािनुुु )
Information Commissioner (सचूनाूूू आयुुुु ) Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ ca.joseph@nic.in
सी. ए. जोसफे, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक /
7