2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3023
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
ANAND PRAKASH MALL – Appellant
Versus
Ordnance Factory Board – Respondent
CIC/OFBKO/A/2023/628878
The RTI Act mandates that requests must seek existing information, not suggestions or opinions, as clarified by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(f) - Definition of 'information' - Appellant's RTI application seeking inquiry into alleged false case was deemed to request suggestions rather than specific information - CPIO's response deemed appropriate as it clarified the limits of information under the Act - The Supreme Court's ruling in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay emphasized that public authorities are not obligated to provide advice or inferences. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Appeal - Scope of RTI - The Commission clarified that requests must seek existing information rather than suggestions or opinions, as per the RTI Act. (Paras 7-8)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking information regarding a false case against him, requesting a round table inquiry involving several officers. The CPIO responded that the request did not conform to the definition of 'information' under the RTI Act.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the Appellant's request did not seek specific information but rather suggestions for an inquiry, thus dismissing the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Appellant's request constituted a valid request for information under the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the RTI Act does not require public authorities to provide advice or inferences, emphasizing the need for requests to be specific and within the scope of existing information.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:
Ref: (i) Undersigned L/No.GCF/S&C/APMALL/970607/FALSE CASE/2022 Dated 13-AUG-2022 (pdf copy attached with this mail) which was E-mailed to the Hon'ble Executive Director of GCF, Hon'ble Deepak Gupta Sir and Copy to Inquiry Authority Shri Satish Sharma, JGM/ODC on dated Saturday August 13, 2022, at MANAGER, Per No.97**07) (ii) Undersigned L/No.GCF/S&C/A.P.MALL/ 970607/FALSE CASE/2022 Dated 03-SEP-2022 (iii) Undersigned L/No.GCF/S&C/A.P.MALL/970607/FALSE CASE/2023 Dated 10-01-2023 [ Reply of Executive Director L/No. GCF/DS/18/03/2021 Dated 24- DEC-2022 Received on 27- DEC-2022 (Tuesday)] (iv) Undersigned L/No.GCF/S&C/A.P.MALL/970607/FALSE CASE/Protection of Whistle Blower/2023 Dated 18-01-2023 [ ANAND PRAKASH MALL JWM 970607 Representation for Hon'ble Executive Director L/No.GCF/DS/18/03/2021 Dated 17/01/2023 Received on 18/01/2023]
Vide E-mail letters under reference (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv), it was informed and once again it is being informed that false case has been made against the undersigned to suppress the voice of the undersigned..
The following officers need to be called for a round table inquiry: -
1) The last three General Managers of Gun Carriage Factory need to be called:-
(i) Hon'ble S.K. Singh Sir (Per No.99**88), Hon'ble Sr. General Manager of GCF who was superannuated on dated 31-AUG-2018.
(ii) Hon'ble Rajnish Jauhari Sir (Per No.99**15), Hon'ble Sr. General Manager of GCF who was superannuated on dated 28-FEB-2020.
iii) Hon'ble Rajesh Choudhary Sir (Per No.99**52), who was Hon'ble General Manager of GCF and who is currently our Hon'ble Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of Advanced Weapons and Equipment India Limited (AWEIL).
2) Previous case Inquiry Officer Shri Vivek Kumar Sharma, JGM (Per No.99**73) who is currently on deputation who did LEEPA POOTI in previous case need to be called.
I am requesting to the Hon'ble Executive Director of Gun Carriage Factory Jabalpur, Hon'ble Deepak Gupta Sir (Per No.99**56) to please use his wisdom to investigate the whole case since previous case and this new case cannot be seen separately and the above-mentioned officers need to be called for a round table inquiry before coming to any conclusion.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.02.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
“ आपक े ारा $ुत उ& संदिभत आवेदन की जांच करने पर यह पाया गया िक, आपने अिधिनयम की धारा 2 (च) म/ विणत "सूचना" की प1रभाषा इतर 4यं के िव56 िनमाणी शासन ारा की जा रही अनुशासिनक जाँच से संबंिधत िशकायतों की जानकारी देते 9ये िनराकरण िकये जाने हेतु अनुरोध िकया गया है।
सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम 2005 क े अंतगत क ेवल ऐसी सूचना/द$ावेज दान िकया जाना अपेि@त है, जो लोक ाियकारण क े पास पहले से मौजूद है अथवा उसक े िनयBण म/ है। लोक सूचना अिधकारी ारा सूचना सृिजत करना या सूचना की Dाा करना या आवेदक ारा उठाई गई समFाओं का समाधान करना या काHिनक Iों का उJर देना अपेि@त नहीं है। अतः आपके उ& संदिभत आवेदन पर लोक सूचना अिधकारी ारा कोई भी कायवाही िकया जाना संभव नहीं है।”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.02.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.03.2023 directed the CPIO to provide the information.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 13.06.2023.
5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Shikha Kalyan, Works Manager attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the requested information has not been received.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the Appellant had not sought for any information as per the definition of “information” in the RTI Act.
Rather he had suggested for round table inquiry of certain officers. If he would have specified any information, they were ready to provide it. But as per
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
