O R D E R

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, Patna, Bihar. The appellant seeking information is as under:-

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 05.03.2020 has given a point wise reply to the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 06.04.2020 and requested that the information should be provided to her. The FAO vide order dated 15.05.2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. She has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to her and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant remained absent despite notice. The mobile number of the appellant also remained switched off despite several attempts made by the Commission. The respondent, Shri Rajeev Kumar, Admn Officer attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The respondent submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.

5. The respondent while reiterating the replies of the CPIO/ FAA submitted that vide letter dated 06.04.2020, they have furnished a point wise reply to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA vide its order dated 15.05.2020 also upheld the reply furnished by the CPIO.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information pertaining to loan that she applied for and issues related thereto. The Commission further observes the queries of the appellant is in the nature of seeking clarification/explanation/confirmation from the CPIO. The Commission further observes that the information sought by the appellant are generic in nature and no specific document has been sought. Only the documents/ information available in material form as per the records available with the public authority can be furnished under the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to compile information as per the desire of the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.

In this regard, 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.”

In this context a reference was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:

35 “A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making 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’ n 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