O R D E R

1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o. The Pr.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi. seeking information is as under:-

“Total amount paid by officers of CCIT Charge Ranchi on account of personal calls made by them from official telephone allotted to them during the month of July2019.”

2. Being aggrieved with the response given by the respondent, the complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Hearing:

3. The complainant remained absent despite notice. The mobile number of the Complainant also remained unanswered despite several efforts by the Commission.

The respondent, Mr. Neeraj Rastogi, Asst. Commissioner/ CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The respondent while reiterating the replies of the CPIO/ FAA submitted that vide their letter dated 22.08.2019 they have already informed the complainant that no such record of documents are maintained by them as such as there is no separate record bifurcation the call details of the individual are being kept and hence the reply/information has been furnished to the complainant within the stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

Decision:

5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the complainant seeking information regarding total amount paid by officers of CCIT Charge Ranchi on account of personal calls made by them from official telephone allotted to them during the month of July, 2019. The Commission further observes that the reply has been provided well within stipulated time-frame on 22.08.2019. 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.

6. 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’ 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 KhanapuramGandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF

2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:

6. “....Und