The denial of information under the RTI Act requires proper justification; mere requests for clarifications do not constitute defined information.

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.09.2023 seeking information on the following points:

a) Whether the Department of Post has taken on lease the property bearing Maal Godam Road, Civil Lines Badaun? What is the duration of the lease?

b) Whether the Department of Post has verified the ownership of the abovementioned property and the legal rights of the persons who signed the rent/ lease deed? And what documents has been received for ascertaining the ownership of the persons who signed the rent/lease deed?

c) Whether the Department of Post is aware about the legal dispute of legal heirs on the actual deceased land owner and whether the Department of Post has received any legal notice regarding the same?

d) What actions or inquiry have been taken by the Department of Post on the Legal notice if received? If not, what are the reasons?

e) \Mether the Department of Post is aware about the other legal heirs and if yes whether the Department of Post is not bound to withhold the rent till finalization of the Legal Dispute or distribute it accordingly …, etc./ other related information

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.10.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

आपके ঋाथ१ना पআ के संदभ१ म७ सूचना अिधकार अिधिनयम-2005 के िनयम -8 के अंतग१त सूचनाये उपल(cid:617) नहीं कराई जा सकती है।

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.11.2023. The FAA’s order, if any, is not on record of the Commission.

4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 14.02.2024.

5. The appellant appeared in person and on behalf of the respondent, A.K. Singh, Assistant Superintendent of Posts, attended the hearing through audio conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the information sought through her RTI application was improperly denied by the CPIO. She further contended that she is the legal heir of the individual in respect of whose property the information was sought.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application was issued vide letter dated 12.10.2023, wherein the information was denied under Section 8 of the RTI Act on the ground that the application pertained to third- party information. It was further submitted that the Appellant had not furnished any proof substantiating her claim as the legal heir of the concerned individual.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the denial of information by the CPIO under Section 8 of the RTI Act without specifying the relevant sub-clause and without furnishing any justification is inappropriate. The Commission, therefore, cautions the CPIO to strictly adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act while disposing of RTI applications. Where any exemption is claimed under Section 8 or 9 of the Act, the CPIO must refer to and justify the applicability of the specific sub-clause invoked.

The Commission further notes that the Appellant sought certain documents under points (a) to (c) and also raised queries under 13 heads (a to m). In relation to the latter, it is observed that these queries are in the nature of interrogatories and seek clarifications, which do not fall within the ambit of "information" as defined under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is not obligated to provide explanations, clarifications, or opinions, but only such material informa