The Right to Information Act does not require public authorities to create or collate information not already available; CPIOs are obligated only to provide existing information.

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.06.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.07.2024 stating as under:

3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.07.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 04.09.2024, held as under:

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

5. A written submission dated 20.11.2025 filed by Shri Bichitra Mahaparta, Executive Director/ FAA (Nodal RTI Cell) is taken on record. Relevant extracts of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video conference.

Respondent: Ms. Gayathri, Secretary (HR & Training)/Alternate CPIO along with Ms. Chaya D, Dy. Secretary (Personnel) present through video conference.

6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 06.05.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirmed non-service.

7. The Appellant by giving reference to one of his previous Second Appeal which was decided by this Bench bearing case File No. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/132003 heard on 09.10.2024 where the Commission has wrongly observed his conduct as bad for framing trick question. In this regard, he filed a letter to the CIC for change of Bench for adjudication of instant Appeal. The prayer of the Appellant could not be allowed as there is already vacancy of Information Commissioner in the CIC and there is no provision under the RTI Act which specifies dealing with such requests. On being asked by the Commission regarding Appellant’s discontentment on the CPIO’s reply in the instant case, he went on arguing the fact of his previous Second Appeal.

8. The Respondent while inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of their written submission stated that the genesis of instant case is the transfer and posting issue of Appellant, which has already been resolved way back in 2013 giving preferred posting to the Appellant on his request in the Sirohi City as per his own choice. Still, the Appellant is filing the RTI application seeking clarifications to redress his perceived grievance for the reasons best known to him. However, as regards information sought is concerned point-wise reply along with relevant available information has already been provided to the Appellant. Decision:

9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records finds no infirmity in the reply furnished by the CPIO earlier and now vide written submission dated 20.11.2025 as the same were found to be as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

10. It is noteworthy that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office at the relevant time and hence, he/she is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant. In this regard, the Commission would like to refer a judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. /b>. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011], wherein the Court has held as under:

“11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant…….”

11. Intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.