CCTV footage could not be provided as the CCTV camera installed at the main gate was not working at the relevant time - FAA: RTI is only forum to get available information and PIO is not supposed to create information - CIC: No denial of information

CCTV footage could not be provided as the CCTV camera installed at the main gate was not working at the relevant point of time - FAA: RTI is only forum to get available information, and PIO is not supposed to create information and this platform cannot be treated as tool to resolve the official/administrative/domestic and personal issue - CIC: No denial of information and whatever was available was already given

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. A complaint was made regarding the misbehaviour of Mr. Santosh, Canteen employee with Sh. Amit Kumar on 04/10/2018. Whether the CCTV footage of the said incidence is available in the record.

2. If available in records, provide the same on whatsapp number of Amit Kumar.

3. If the CCTV footage cannot be transmitted on whatsapp, provide alternate modes for obtaining the same.

4. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal

The CPIO has not provided satisfactory information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that during the first appeal hearing he requested for CCTV footage. He alleged that as per conspiracy Shri Santosh Kumar had assaulted him on 04.10.2018. On being asked to be specific regarding the points of the RTI application, for which he is not satisfied with the reply, he pressed for information on point no. 8 of the RTI application. The CPIO submitted that the canteen CCTV footage CD was given, but, the quarrel referred to occurred outside the gate. He also affirmed that he is a responsible officer and he takes responsibility for his statement that the CCTV camera installed at the main gate was not working at the relevant point of time and hence footage of that could not be provided. He summed up stating that a suitable reply was given to the appellant vide letter dated 12.11.2018.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 12.11.2018 had provided a point-wise reply, which reads as follows:

“1. CCTV footage of camera installed is enclosed in shape of CD.

2. CCTV footage is provided through CD.

3. to 7 Requisite information i.e footage of CCTV camera installed in canteen provided

8. No camera is installed outside the gate. 01 Camera is installed inside the campus near main gate. The CCTV camera installed at main gate is not working. Hence no information/footage can be provided.

9. Requisite information i.e footage of CCTV camera installed in canteen provided. “

The FAA after giving personal hearing to the appellant, disposed of the appeal on 18.12.2018 and held as follows:

“CPIO has provided the available information to the applicant vide letter dated 12.11.2018 and found that no other relevant information was available with the CPIO. So, it is intimated to the applicant that RTI is only forum to get available information, and CPIO is not supposed to create record/information and this platform cannot be treated as tool to resolve the official/administrative/domestic and personal issue”

It was noted from the reply given that available information had already been provided to the appellant. The FAA also clarified in his order that the CPIO cannot create information. As per the contentions raised during the hearing in respect of point no. 8, the Commission observed that a detailed reply was given on that point. The appellant was also informed by the Commission that if the camera was not working in a particular premise, there is no question of providing the footage. The Commission finds no infirmity in the CPIO’s reply.

Decision:

In view of the above observations, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO and also finds the second appeal devoid of merits. Moreover, there was no denial of information and whatever was available was already given. Therefore, no further action is required in this case.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna

Information Commissioner

Citation: Amit Kumar v. Employees Provident Fund Organization in File no.: CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/105339, Date of Decision: 07/10/2020