The RTI Act does not require public authorities to create information that is not available, limiting the jurisdiction of the Commission to matters of information disclosure.

ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jaipur seeking copy of his original policy bond.

2. The CPIO responded on 26-07-2019. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 09-08-2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 12-09-2019. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/ Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/ Section 2 0 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Mr. Javen Ahmed Khan attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Ms. Sonali Sarin, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

4. The appellant limited his submissions on providing copy of his original policy bond. He alleged that despite his several correspondences with the public authority, his request was not processed timely.

5. The respondent categorically submitted that the applicant had sought copy of the original policy bond after 5 years which is beyond their retention period of two years. Accordingly, he was issued a duplicate bond having the same worth as that of the original one. This position has already been communicated to the appellant vide their letters dated 26-07-2019 & 12-09-2019.

Decision:

6. This Commission observes that a duplicate policy bond has been issued to the applicant since the original policy bond was not available with the public authority after the retention period of two years. It is further observed that the CPIO is expected to provide the information which is available with him. He is not required to collect and compile the information on the demand of a requester nor is he expected to create a fresh one merely because someone has asked for it. Accordingly, the reply furnished by the CPIO is being upheld. This is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04-12-2014 in W.P.(C) 6634/2011 & CM No.13398/2011 titled as The Registrar, Supreme Court Of India v. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. , wherein, it was observed as follows:-

“11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant. The Supreme Court in Aditya Bandhopadhyay (supra) 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 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 co