ORDER

1. Since the matter involves adjudication of identical issues, these cases are being clubbed together and disposed of by a common single order.

2. The appellant filed the application(s) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi seeking following information:-

“a) Subject matter of information: Pertaining to Grievance No. DOEAF/E/2019/00357 Dtd 5.4.19 against Shri Manmohan Sachdeva Director (Currency) forwarded to SPMCIL stating that: Subject matter is concerned with SPMCIL for appropriate action.

b) The period to which information relates: 5.4.19 to Current Date.

c) Description of Information required: Please provide certified copies of following information:

1. Kindly highlight the relevant part from grievance which proves that the subject matter is concerned with SPMCIL.

2. If no information exists for Sno 1, then provide Name, Designation, Email address, and official mobile number of the disciplinary authority to whom complaint of dereliction of duty of accountable official can be filed.”

3. The CPIO responded on 22-07-2019 & 26-03-2021. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 13-05-2019 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 01-06-2019. Thereafter, he filed the second appeal(s) u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Hearing:

4. The appellant, Mr. Varun Krishna attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Smt. Jessie Jacob, Under Secy./CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

5. The appellant stated that the then CPIO, Mr. Dalip Singh has furnished a cyclostyled reply after a considerable delay thereby quoting Para 9 of DOP&T OM No. 1/4/2008-IR dated 25.04.2008 wherein it is mentioned that only such information is required to be supplied under the RTI Act, 2005 which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. Therefore, an appropriate action should be initiated against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 for obstructing the flow of information. He further stated that the CPIO should be directed to provide him the documents on the basis of which his grievance petition was forwarded to the SPMCIL thereby indicating that the ‘subject matter is concerned with SPMCIL for appropriate action.’ He alleged that his grievance was wrongly forwarded to SPMCIL.

6. Smt. Jessie Jacob, Under Secy./CPIO informed the Commission that now, they have furnished a point-wise reply to the appellant vide their letter dated 26- 03-2021 thereby indicating that ‘the query is not clear.’ She further contended the appellant herein expects the CPIO to interpret the documents and provide confirmation as to why his grievance petition was forwarded to SPMCIL. She stated that no such information is available in the material form and therefore, the CPIO cannot be expected to analyse and interpret the grievance petition. However, she informed the disciplinary authority of Shri Manmohan Sachdeva was the then Joint Secretary.

Decision:

7. This Commission observes that the appellant has sought highlighted portion of the grievance which proves that the subject matter pertained to SPMCIL. This requires interpretation and analyses of his grievance petition and then providing its highlighted portion which could satisfy the aspirations of the appellant. Therefore, the CPIO cannot be expected to search, examine and make judgment to find out the highlighted portion as contemplated by the appellant. This sort of queries seeking clarification from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of ‘information’ u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers to the definition of ‘information’ u/s Secti