CIC: Information sought is in the form of expressing conjecture and interrogating the PIO against the action/inaction on the PG portal complaint filed; Outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) to include deductions and inferences is unwarranted
1 Oct, 2023Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.10.2022 seeking the following information:-
“FIRST QUESTION -AT THE TIME OF REGISTERING OF MY PETITION ON THE PG PORTAL BY THE DOPT, WHY MY REGISTRATION NUMBER WAS NOT COMMUNICATED TO ME THROUGH EMAIL AND SMS?
SECOND QUESTION - WHY MY PETITION WAS NOT FULLY SCANNED AND UPLOADED ON THE PG PORTAL? IN OTHER WORDS, MY PETITION CONTAINED 41 PAGES WITH RESPECT TO MHA AND 42 PAGES WITH RESPECT TO DOPT BUT ONLY FEW PAGES WERE SCANNED AND UPLOADED WHILE THE REMAINING PAGES WERE NOT SCANNED AND UPLOADED ON THE PG PORTAL, WHY?
THIRD QUESTION - WHEN MY PETITION WAS DISPOSED OF, NEITHER I GET THE INFORMATION OF DISPOSAL THROUGH EMAIL NOR THROUGH SMS, WHY?
FOURTH QUESTION - WHY THE REMAINING PAGES OF MY PETITION HAVE NOT BEEN SCANNED AND UPLOADED ON THE PG PORTAL UNTIL NOW?
FIFTH QUESTION-ONE PAGE HAS BEEN CUT FROM UP AND DOWN, AND THE MIDDLE PORTION OF THE PAGE HAS BEEN SCANNED AND UPLOADED ON THE PG PORTAL, WHY?
SIXTH QUESTION - ONE PAGE HAS BEEN SCANNED AND UPLOADED TWICE, i.e., FIRSTLY BY TRUNCATING THE PAGE AND SECONDLY IN THE ORIGINAL CONDITION OF THE PAGE, WHY?
SEVENTH QUESTION - IN MY PETITION, THE OTHER COMPLAINANT HAVING THE COMPLAINT SUBJECT < REQUEST FOR URGENT APPOINTMENT > HAS BEEN INCLUDED, SCANNED AND THEN UPLOADED ON THE PG PORTAL, WHY?
EIGHTH QUESTION - WHY HAS THE INVISIBLE DOCUMENT NOT BEEN SCANNED AND UPLOADED ON THE PG PORTAL?
NINTH QUESTION - IN THE DOPT REPLY DOCUMENT, ONE CLAUSE NAMELY < OM DATED 08.09.2021 ENCLOSING A LETTER DATED 11.06.2021 > HAS BEEN WRITTEN; BUT IN REALITY AND IN UNIVERSALITY, THIS VERY CLAUSE OUGHT TO BE WRITTEN LIKE THIS < OM DATED 08.09.2021 ENCLOSING A LETTER DATED 27.07.2021 > . WHY HAS THE LATTER CLAUSE HAVING DATE 27 JULY 2021 NOT BEEN WRITTEN IN THE DOPT REPLY DOCUMENT?
TENTH QUESTION -IN DOPT REPLY DOCUMENT, DY No. = 1463329 BELONGS TO WHOM?
ELEVENTH QUESTION - WHEN ALL THE PAGES OF MY PETITION WERE SENT BY MHA TO DOPT, THEN WHY DOPT TAMPERED WITH MY PETITION?”
The CPIO, PG Cell furnished a reply to the appellant on 07.11.2022 stating as under:-
“In this regard, it is to inform that your petition was received in hard copy from the Ministry of Home Affairs vide their latter dated 24013/3/2021-CSR.II dated NIL contained a total of 21 pages, as indicated in the letter, which were uploaded on the PG portal of DOPAT while registering your petition/complaint and consequently Registration No. DOPAT/P/2021/00827 dated 08.09.2021 was generated and the same was forwarded to AVD-II Division, DoPT for necessary action. The same was communicated to you vide this Department's letter No. 23011/01/2020-PG Cell dated 08.09.2021. Further, your complaint was forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh vide their letter no. 270/19/2021-AVD.II dated 13.10.2021 for necessary action. A copy of all the aforesaid letters is enclosed for your reference.
Point No. 01-08 & 11: As informed above, your petition was received from the Ministry of Home Affairs vide their letter no. 24013/3/2021-CSR.II dated NIL (copy enclosed) containing a total of 21 pages which were (as received from MHA) uploaded on the PG portal of DOPT. Thereafter, the same was forwarded to AVD-II Division, DoPT for necessary action vide this Department's letter No. 23011/01/2020-PG Cell dated 08.09.2021. The same was also communicated to you. However, a copy of the same is enclosed herewith for ready reference. No, further information is available with the undersigned CPIO.
Further, your attention is also drawn to the RTI Act which provides that that only such information can be supplied which already exists and is held by the Public Authority. The Public Authority is not supposed to create information, or to interpret information, or to solve the problems raised by the applicants.
Point no. 09 & 10: Information under these points pertains to the CPIO concerned in the AVD-II Division, DoPT.
Your RTI Application is hereby forwarded to the CPIOs concerned in the AVDII Division, DoPT and Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 205 for necessary action.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.11.2022. FAA’s order, dated 06.12.2022 is as under:-
“I have reviewed the submissions of the Appellant and perused the records of the case as presented by the nodal CPIO. I find that the information sought by Appellant in his RTI Application dated 08.10.2022 has been provided by the CPIO concerned i.e. PG Cell vide this department's letter dated 07.11.2022 (copy enclosed) wherein all the queries in the RTI Application have been attended to by the CPIO and is in order. Therefore, the grounds raised in the First Appeal, of providing Incomplete, Misleading & False information stands redressed and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.”
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Sanjay Kumar Chaurasia, US & CPIO, AVD Section along with Surya Prakash, US & CPIO, PG Cell present through intra-video conference.
Surya Prakash, US & CPIO, PG Cell submitted that he has already provided a pointwise information to the Appellant vide his reply dated 07.11.2022. The First Appellate Authority has also provided reply in the matter on 06.12.2022 and endorsed the reply given by the CPIO. Therefore, no other material information was/is available in the records held by his Section.
Sanjay Kumar Chaurasia, US & CPIO, AVD-II Section regretted that the factum of forwarding the RTI Application to his Section for points 9 & 10 of the instant RTI Application has come to his notice only today and answered at length against the grievance mentioned by the Appellant through the said points.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that largely the information sought for in the RTI Application is in the form of expressing conjecture and interrogating the CPIO against the action/inaction on the PG portal complaint filed by the Appellant. The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: Murali Manohar Lal v. Department of Personnel & Training, CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/665525, Date of Decision: 20/07/2023