RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Definition of Information
| S.No. | CIC CASE | DATE OF JUDGMENT | JUDGMENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
CIC/DOP&T/A/2018/170564 (196.23 KB) 
|
05 Jan, 2021 | Yogesh Kumar vs. CPIO, M/o. Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department Of Personnel & Training Information sought The Appellant sought to know if there is any proposal to implement the MACP w.e.f 01.01.2006 instead of 01.09.2008 as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3744 of 2016; if yes, its present position; if not, then the reasons thereof. Decision The Commission observes from the proceedings during the hearing as well as the perusal of facts on record that the instant matter is not as much about seeking information as much it is about redressing the Appellant’s grievance emanating from the non-implementation of the averred MACP scheme. As rightly pointed out by the CPIO, the information sought in the RTI Application does not even conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the 3 exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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). Nonetheless, the CPIO has provided adequate clarifications to the Appellant during the hearing, thus, leaving no further scope of intervention at this stage. Further, the Appellant is advised to await the decision of the appropriate Court of Law for redressing his grievance. In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission finds the instant Appeal bereft of merit. |
| 2 |
CIC/DOCAF/A/2018/137220 (531.04 KB)
|
11 Feb, 2020 | A.K. Vasudev Vs. CPIO, M/o Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi - 110001 Information Sought The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, New Delhi seeking information on two points, including, inter-alia; “1. Whether or not wrist watches are pre-packaged commodity in terms of Legal Metrology Act, 2009, if the package is used only for safety purposes and to keep away dust/dirt, and 2. If the answer to point no. 1 is no, then are the watches covered under the ambit of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the rules made thereunder?” Decision The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and upon perusal of records, observes that the appellant, vide his RTI application in question, is seeking answers to his questions, which does not fall within the definition of ‘information’ as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission refers to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court at Goa in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. Goa State Information Commission (W.P. No. 419 of 2007, decision dated 03.04.2008) wherein it was held as follows: "The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be 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." In view of the above ratio, the Commission observes that at the outset it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. The Commission is, therefore, of the view that an appropriate response has been provided to the appellant vide letters dated 12.01.2018 and 06.04.2018. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties. |
| 3 |
CIC/TDDEL/A/2018/140830 (585.05 KB)
|
10 Feb, 2020 | Shri Sanjeev Kumar Vs. PIO/PCO (Cluster), Transport Dept. 5/9 Under Hill Road, Delhi Information Sought Appellant filed RTI application dated 10.01.2017 seeking information on 05 points; 1. Provide daily progress report on complaint dated 16.12.2017. 2. Provide the name of the officers who kept the complaint pending. 3. What action will be initiated on the officers mentioned at point number 2 above? 4. When will action be initiated? 5. When will action be taken on the complaint of the Appellant? Decision Commission notes that the present RTI application stems from the grievance of the Appellant. Since the Commission is not a grievance redressal forum the Appellant is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for resolution of his grievances which are essentially premised over disputed questions of fact. The appeal is disposed off accordingly, with no further directions. |
| 4 |
CIC/AAOIN/A/2018/142150 (155.58 KB)
|
06 Jan, 2020 | Anupkumar Ramanarayan Sony Vs. CPIO, Airport Authority of India, Vile Parle East, Mumbai – 400099. Information Sought The Appellant sought fight number, operative Airlines & actual time of departure within 24 hrs on 13.04.2018 with full list of flights operated between Mumbai to Indore. Decision Commission has gone through the case records including written submission of Respondent (2) and observes that the Appellant has used the RTI Regime for getting information regarding schedule of flights from Mumbai to Indore on a particular date. Information sought is in public domain and when the Country is moving towards digitalization, Appellant’s request has wasted the time and resources of concerned officials of AAI as well as of the Commission. With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed. |
| 5 |
CIC/DOATE/A/2018/142062 (625.05 KB)
|
20 Nov, 2019 | S Rajamani Vs. CPIO, Atomic Minerals Directorate, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad. Information Sought The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Atomic Minerals Directorate (AMD), Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad seeking information/documents on two points, namely, (i) the analysis of the value of monazite percentage in Vanagiri Village, Sirkazhi Taluk, Nagapattinam District in Tamil Nadu district, (ii) what is the permitted threshold value of monazite below which the private company is permitted to mine beach sand minerals. Decision The respondent submitted that AMD’s exploration activities are carried out over large areas in a regional scale along the coastal tract and inland sand bodies on a scale of 1:50,000. Reconnaissance survey carried out on aforesaid scale may not be able to provide the details of village-wise monazite content as requested in the RTI query. To know the monazite content in these places detailed survey is required. Further, to provide monazite content in Vanagiri village, Sirkazhi Taluk, Nagapattinam District, it will require plotting of data on village cadastral map after completion of survey. Cadastral data in respect of aforesaid villages is not available with AMD. As per DoPT OM No. 1/18/2011-IR dated 16.09.2011 the public information officer is not required to generate or interpret information under RTI Act. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that an appropriate response has been furnished to the appellant by the respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. |
| 6 |
CIC/RECOS/C/2018/120914 (537.40 KB)
|
15 Nov, 2019 | Shri Y.S. Srivastava Vs. PIO/ Assistant Registrar – (Section-6), O/o the Registrar Cooperative Societies (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Information Sought Complainant vide RTI application dated 18.08.2017, sought action taken on his letter dated 05.12.2012 regarding financial irregularities in The Press Association CGHS (PACGHS) during 2008-2012. PIO/Asstt. Commissioner(D) vide letter dated 08.09.2017 stated that the Complainant was asked to submit the documentary evidence in support of the complaint of financial irregularities but the Complainant did not submit any evidence/proof. Dissatisfied with the information received from the PIO, the Complainant filed a complaint to the Commission. Decision The complainant has produced the letter dated 05.12.2012 and it is noted by the Commission that prayer of the Applicant requires that the instant complaint be converting into a Second Appeal. Accordingly, it is directed that the Respondent shall take appropriate action with respect to the complaint dated 05.12.2012 submitted by the Appellant and upon conducting necessary investigation; an action taken report may be supplied by the Respondent to the Appellant within three weeks from the receipt of this order. Compliance report in this regard must reach the Commission by 13.12.2019, failing which non-compliance proceedings shall be initiated against the concerned official. |
| 7 |
CIC/DOP&T/A/2018/130960 (184.47 KB)
|
17 Sep, 2019 | Kamlesh Devda Vs. CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training, Information sought: The Appellant sought information through 9 points regarding purpose of opening Kendriya Bhandar earlier known as Central Government Employees Consumer Cooperative Society Ltd., at present working under Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002; status, powers and roll of Government Director appointed by the Government etc. Decision: Commission has gone through the case records and observes that information sought is in larger public interest because the Appellant has only sought to know the identity of the recipients of 15 payments (total amount to Rs. 1,10,87,504.00) in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012. Payments have been made by Kendriya Bhandar to 15 entities and their identity needs to be disclosed. At the outset it is adequately clarified that in the present matter, the Commission is not adjudicating upon the status of Kendriya Bhandar vis-a-vis the RTI Act. In view of the facts of the present case, it is relevant to bring out the provisions of Section 2(j) and 2(f) of the RTI Act which clearly stipulates that: 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—...........” 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...” Upon a conjoint reading of the two Sections, it becomes essentially clear that the RTI Application of the Appellant has to be construed in the spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Act. It is emphasized therefore that even if hypothetically the CPIO’s claim of Kendriya Bhandar not being a public authority is conceded with, fact remains that the Appellant has sought information from a public authority and not from the averred Kendriya Bhandar, therefore the contention of the CPIO that Kendriya Bhandar is not a public authority will not apply to the merits of this case. In view of the aforesaid, CPIO is directed to provide information to the Appellant pertaining to the identity of the recipients of 15 payments (total amount to Rs.1,10,87,504.00) in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 sought at para 9 of the RTI Application which is available with him or which he can access from Kendriya Bhandar. The said direction should be complied within 15 days of the receipt of this order and information to be provided in compliance of this order will be free of cost and a compliance report to this effect should be sent to the Commission by the CPIO. |
| 8 |
CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/104251 (622.52 KB)
|
16 Sep, 2019 | Chandra Prakash Jain Vs. CPIO, Delhi Police, Rajouri Garden Information Sought The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Delhi Police, O/o the DCP, West District, Rajouri Garden seeking to know the precautions taken by Police to keep a check on illegal dismantling and sale of parts of stolen cars at junk market, Mayapuri, Delhi. Decision The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the issue of illegal dismantling and sale of parts of stolen cars has been raised from time to time by the media. In view of this, Delhi Police might have issued guidelines, circulars, warning to the traders selling car parts regarding illegal dismantling and sale of parts of stolen cars. The Commission, therefore, notes that correct and complete information has not been provided to the appellant. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide the requisite information sought for to the appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission. |
| 9 |
CIC/RECOS/A/2017/139755 (626.91 KB)
|
01 Jul, 2019 | Shri Om Prakash Verma Vs. PIO, O/o the Registrar of Science of Societies Old Court Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001 Information Sought The Appellant vide RTI application dated 11.05.2016, sought information on two points regarding maintenance, electricity and water charges of flats in Aarti CGHS Ltd. located at Plot No. 1A, Sector 2, Dwarka, New Delhi and parking allotment in the Society, in the following manner: - i) Two bed rooms (small) and three bed rooms (large) are making payment of maintenance, electricity and water charges as per the Society’s norms. 16 Flats having 2 bed rooms (large) super area of each flat 1231 Sq. feet are making payment of maintenance, electricity and water charges only for 8 flats in that each flat super area 1070 Sq. feet. It is requested that reason for non-recovery of maintenance, electricity and water charges from occupation of 16 flats for super area 1231 Sq. feet may be intimated at the same time it is emphasized that recovery of the maintenance, electricity and water charges from 16 flats occupants for super area 1231 Sq. feet may be done with penal charges forthwith. ii) That number of parking held in the society. Number of parking allotted and not allotted. Reasons for non-allotment may be given that three rooms are held on the ground floor in Tower No. 2 in the car parking area under flat No. 212 & 213 Date of occupation and particulars of the occupants and amount of monthly rent being paid by these occupants from the date of occupation may please be intimated. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 18.07.2016.FAA/Deputy Registrar-IV vide order dated 02.09.2016 directed the PIO/AR to provide the information to the Appellant in respect of para 2 and 3 within 15 days of the issue of his order. Feeling aggrieved over non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal. Decision Upon perusal of records of the case, the Commission is of the opinion that the conduct of the PIO is clearly violative of the provisions of the RTI Act since there was no response from the CPIO. Even after specific directions by the FAA vide order dated 02.09.2016, it is on 07.03.2019 that information was denied advising the appellant to seek such information under Section 139 of the DCS Act, 2003. The PIO-AR has not appeared nor submitted any justification for the delay of over two years in compliance of the FAA’s order. This directly contravenes the provisions of the RTI Act with respect to adhering to the timelines in supplying information/response against an RTI application. Hence, the Commission directs Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause Notice to Sh. M G Sathya for causing inordinate delay in replying to the appellant and non-compliance of the orders of the FAA. The PIO/Notice must submit his response to the Show Cause Notice, explaining why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for violation of the RTI Act. The response must reach the Commission atleast one week prior to the date of hearing of the Show Cause case. |
| 10 |
CIC/EICOI/A/2018/612893/00792 (205.84 KB)
|
03 Jun, 2019 | Rahul R Vs. Asst. Director (T) & CPIO Export Inspection Council, Information Sough The appellant has sought the following information; 1. Copies of all the reports submitted by the EIC to the CIC and MoCI as per the Section 25 of the RTI Act, 2005 from the year 2005 (year wise). 2. Total number of RTI applications pending till date beyond 30 days of its receipt. 3. Details of all Decisions made by the CIC against RTI appeals (year wise) since 2005. 4. Whether the EIC has published sixteen categories of information as per Section 4(1)(b) of the Act on its website. Decision From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that a timely reply was provided to the appellant's RTI application by the CPIO vide letter dated 13.11.2017. The CPIO in response to query 1 informed the appellant that the sought for information is voluminous, spanning over 12 years and is not available in the form requested and therefore could not be provided, while in reply to query 2, a categorical reply has been provided. With regard to points no 3 & 4, the appellant was directed to visit the respective websites of the concerned organisations. With regard to points no 3 & 4 of the RTI application, the Commission reiterates the observation made by a coordinate bench of this Commission in the case of Sh. K. Lall Vs. Sh. M.K. Bagri, Assistant Registrar of Companies & CPIO, F.No CIC/AT/A/2007/00112 as under: Section 2(j) of the RTI Act speaks of "the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority.......". The use of the words "accessible under this Act"; "held by" and "under the control of" are crucial in this regard. The inference from the text of this sub-section and, especially the three expressions quoted above, is that an information to which a citizen will have a right should be shown to be a) an information which is accessible under the RTI Act and b) that it is held or is under the control of a certain public authority. This File no.: CIC/EICOI/A/2018/612893 should mean that unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely, or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be 'held' or 'under the control of' the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Thus, in the matter in hand, a point wise reply as per available records was provided and it cannot be said that the CPIO acted consciously and deliberately with intent to deny the information sought by the appellant. The Commission finds no scope for intervention in the reply provided by the CPIO based on perusal of the facts on record. The Commission accordingly upholds the submission of the CPIO. No further action lies. |
| 11 |
CIC/FSSAI/A/2019/100684-BJ (150.55 KB)
|
03 Jun, 2019 | Mr. Piyush Thakkar Vs. CPIO, Food Safety and Standard Authority of India, Mumbai Information Sought The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the consignments arrived at Mumbai (WR) during the period from 01.01.2018 to 31.08.2018 in the format mentioned in the RTI application. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Decision The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below: “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, 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 Vs. 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 Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. 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, emails, 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.” Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant not to press the matter further, no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. |
| 12 |
CIC/LICOI/A/2018/102357-BJ (160.23 KB)
|
03 Jun, 2019 | Mr. Sushil Kumar Chaurasiya Vs. CPIO Manager (CRM), LIC of India, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh – 482001 Information Sought The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the educational records of SC/ ST employees, their appointment letter, service book, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 06.11.2017 denied disclosure of information on points 01 to 03 u/s 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. As regards points 04 and 05, it was stated that the information sought was not held with them. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 06.12.2017 concurred with the response of the CPIO. Decision In this context, the Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under: “13......The performance of an employee / officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.” Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy Gen. Manager v. C.S. Shyam, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 dated 31.08.2017 had held as under: “5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. 11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act. 12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, 5 it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal. 14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1.” Moreover, in Union of India v. R. Jayachandran WP (C) 3406/2012 dated 19.02.2014 the High Court of Delhi had held that passport details, copies of birth certificate and copies of records of educational qualification are personal information, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals unless there was an overbearing public interest in favour of disclosure. The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests. |
| 13 |
CIC/MPERS/A/2017/175992/SD (157.02 KB)
|
16 May, 2019 | Sandip Nana Patil Vs. CPIO, DoPT, New Delhi Information Sought The Appellant sought to know if there are rules and regulations for grievance redressal mechanism on PG Portal; if so, details and action taken thereon; if there is any proposal for compulsory VRS or termination of service etc. Decision Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record that the information sought in the RTI Application is not as per Section 2(f) of RTI Act as Appellant has sought for clarification and interpretation of the CPIO based on vague queries. CPIO has provided an appropriate reply leaving no further scope of intervention at this stage. |
| 14 |
CIC/MPERS/A/2017/158527/SD (116.30 KB)
|
06 May, 2019 | M Jameel Basha Vs. CPIO, DoPT, New Delhi – 110001 Information Sought The Appellant sought certain clarification regarding Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme of Govt. of India, 1993. Decision Commission concedes with the submission of the CPIO as no information has been sought as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It may be noted that under RTI Act, CPIO is not supposed to create information or interpret/ clarify/ deduct information in respect of queries/clarifications. Similarly, redressal of grievance, non-compliance of rules, contesting the actions of respondent public authority and suggesting correction in government policies are outside the purview of the RTI Act. |
| 15 |
CIC/MPERS/A/2017/170080/SD (127.22 KB)
|
01 May, 2019 | Keshav Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. CPIO, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi-110003 Information Sought The Appellant sought to know if certain annexure(s) referred in the RTI Application were considered by DoPT during disposing his representation dated 03.07.2015. Decision Commission upholds the submission of the CPIO based on perusal of facts on record as Appellant has not sought for any information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and under RTI Act CPIO is not supposed to provide deduction/clarification/interpretation. No further action lies. |