The main legal point established in the judgment is that information sought under the RTI Act must be in the exclusive custody of a public authority to constitute 'information' under the Act, and the penalty provisions under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act require the CPIO to discharge their duties under the Act.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner/Union of India through the Ministry of Finance is aggrieved by the order of the Central Information Commission (`CIC') dated 11th August, 2021 by which the CIC has imposed a penalty and has also directed the Petitioner to give the information sought by the RTI applicant.

3. The RTI applicant sought the following information:

"(m) Indian Banks Association Report (2004),

(im) Whether the Indian Bank Association was directed by the Government of India to submit any report? If yes, kindly provide,

a) A certified copy of the relevant order vide which Indian Bank Association was directed.

b) Certified copy of the terms of reference on which the Indian Bank Association was directed to submit its report.

c) The details of officials who had conducted the study and submitted the above report.

(iii) Certified copies of the recommendations made in the Indian Banks Association Report (2004) and have been accepted by the Government of India.

(iv) Whether the information pertaining to para 1 to 3 above available on website, in terms of Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act?

a) if yes, kindly provide the URL link.

b) If no, reasons available on record."

4. The said information was not provided to the RTI applicant. The stand taken was that the certified photocopy of the Indian Banks Association (`IBA') Report, 2004 relates to a third party viz., IBA. The publication, which is a priced publication would not fall within the definition of `information' under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter `RTI Act'). The remaining queries were also rejected. However, the URL link for IBA www.iba.org.in was provided. This was challenged by the RTI applicant and resulted finally, in the order of the CIC. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that information sought was not provided by the respondent. The respondent in defiance of the order of the Commission dated 20.1.2021 gave evasive and misleading reply and defied the unambiguous directions. The respondent during the course of hearing inter alia submitted that information sought on point no. 1 of the RTI application pertained to third party (IBA) and was a priced publication not falling within the definition of information as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. However, the representative of the appellant contended that IBA's Report 2004 was not priced publication as claimed by the respondent and if the same was available in public domain he was ready to pay the price for such document/information. The respondent was not sure as to whether IBA report was published or not. Thus, contention of the respondent was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Moreover, the case referred by the respondent is distinguishable to the facts of this case. Perusal of the records further reveals that the appellant has sought specific information and the same was not available in the market. The information sought was in the custody of the public authority, it was the duty of the public authority to provide the same under the RTI Act. Fee if any could have been realized from the appellant. Besides, the respondent also claimed that information pertained to IBA which is a private body. The definition of "information" as per section 2 (f) of the RTI Act inter alia includes the information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force. It was evident that the said report was procured by the public authority i.e., Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Service, in connection with reply given by the Hon'ble Mister in the Parliament. Any record which is available in the records of the public authority becomes, information which is in the custody of that public authority. Thus, the