A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Information about ACP proposal - CIC is unhappy with the contradictory statements made by the Respondent which shows sheer disregard towards their own employees - CIC: Take relevant details from appellant so that requisite information should be provided

Appellant sought copies of noting w.r.t disciplinary proceedings pending against him - In a similar matter, the CIC order granting relief to the appellant has been stayed by Delhi High Court - CIC: no relief can be ordered in the matter at this stage

Percentage of attendance of student enrolled in PH.D. as per UGC - PIO: Information related to the personal information of other students, therefore the same was denied to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - CIC: Denial upheld

CIC: Complainant is arguing on his grievance regarding 3rd MACP and challenging the correctness of the information provided; PIO provided information in the spirit of RTI Act - CIC: Complainant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the Act

Alleging an unethical practices of taking money for passing PG clinical exam candidates, appellant sought to know the “number of times” a third party has been invited as an examiner - CIC: Being a third party service matter, information exempt u/s 8(1)(j)

A candidate sought to know the number of attempts made for the examinations conducted by UPSC - PIO: The number of attempts of the candidates is checked at the time of final stage of selection only; Information was not available in a complied form

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

RTI applicant can seek compensation if a loss or detriment is suffered due to delay

Delhi HC orders removal of news articles and social media posts against a businessman on X

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

CIPET Administrative Manual and copy of the Minutes of the Governing Council were sought claiming such information should be in the public domain u/s 4(1)(b)(v) - CIC: Provide the information after redacting third party and confidential information u/s 10

14 Aug, 2024

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) “Please provide the details of the authority competent to approve the amendment/ revision in the CIPET Administrative Manual.

(ii) Whether copy of the amended / revised / latest CIPET Administrative Manual and copy of the Minutes of the Governing Council are available in the CIPET Website as per Section 4 of RTI Act 2005.

iii) Please provide the copy of the minutes of the meeting of 127th GC of CIPET.

(iv) Please provide the copy of the Rule-15(3) of Chapter 1, Part-I of CIPET Administrative Manual June 2018.

(v) If any amendment in the Rule-15(3) of Chapter 1, Part-I of CIPET Administrative Manual June 2018, please provide the copy of the amendment and subsequent incorporation in the CIPET Administrative Manual.

(vi) If amended, please provide the date of effect of the amended Rule-15(3) of Chapter 1 Part-I of CIPET Administrative Manual and applicability thereon.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“Point (i) – Governing Council (G.C.) of CIPET chaired by President – CIPET G. C./ Secretary (C&PC), Deptt. Of chemical & Petrochemicals (DCPC), Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, (MoC&F), Govt. of India and Administrative Ministry i.e. DCPC.

Point (ii) & (iii) - The copy of the Revised Administrative Manual of CIPET (June 2018) Revision No: 3 is available in CIPET's website. With regard to Minutes of Governing Council of CIPET, it is exempted from disclosure, as held in the W.P. No: 28643 of 2012 Registrar General of High Court of Madras Vs R.M. Subramani dated 14.06.2013, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that:-

“That apart, if the copies of the Minutes dated 16.12.2010 and 07.03 2011 are supplied to the 1st Respondent/Petitioner, then, the interest of the administration of the High Court will get jeopardized and also it will perforce the Petitioner/High Court to furnish the information sought for by the concerned Applicants/ Requisitionists as a matter of usual course without any qualms or rhyme or reasons/restrictions. In effect, to uphold the dignity and majesty of the Hon'ble High Court being an Independent Authority under the Constitution of India, some self-restrictions are to be imposed as regards the supply of internal/domestic functioning of the Hon'ble High Court and its office information in respect of matters which are highly confidential in nature inasmuch as it concerns with the Intricate, Internal Discussions and Deliberations, Notings, Jottings and Administrative Decisions taken on various matters at different levels and as such, they are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(e) (i) (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Even otherwise, they are not open to litigants/public without restrictions. No wonder, it can be fittingly observed that if Impartiality is the Soul of Judiciary, then, Independence is the Life Blood of Judiciary Also that, without Independence, Impartiality cannot thrive/survive.”

In short, if the information sought for by the 1st Respondent/ Petitioner are furnished, then, it will prejudicially affect the confidential interest, privacy and wellbeing of the High Court, in the considered opinion of this Court.

The POI consider that the disclosure would not serve any public purpose. Hence, PIO is not in a position to furnish information for the said query asked by the applicant.

Point (iv) – The copy of rules 15 (3) of chapter 1, part 1 of CIPET Administration Manual, June 2018 is enclosed herewith.

Point (v) & (vi) - On careful examination of the above query, it is found that the question asked by the RTI applicant is in the nature of an opinion sought for a hypothetically assumed/prescribed situation and hence it does not fall under the definition of "Information" under 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; of the RTI Act when read with Section 2(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; [Definition of 'Right to Information'] as held in the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors, CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011 arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009, wherein the Apex Court while interpreting the various provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, has stated in Para 35, as mentioned below:

"A public authority is also not required to furnish information which requires drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provided advice, guidance, and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 08.12.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.01.2023.

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Ram Nath Tiwari, CPIO attended the hearing in person.

6. The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the fact that he was denied with the information related to the amendment to the administrative manual of the Respondent office when such information should have been made available in the public domain as per Section 4(1)(b)(v) of the RTI Act. He further insisted on relief to be provided on points 5 & 6 of the RTI Application.

7. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant at point no.3 of the RTI Application had sought for the copy of the minutes of the meeting of 127th GC of CIPET without specifying the subject matter whose minutes are being sought for and therefore since the meeting minutes of the General Council will contain varied information of confidential nature, the same was denied to the Appellant. Upon a remark from the Commission that the subject matter of the RTI Application is rather apparent from the entirety of the information sought for in the RTI Application i.e. amendment to the administrative manual, the CPIO submitted that now that it has been taken note of, a revised reply can be provided in the matter, if the Commission so directs.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO failed to appreciate the import of the information sought for at point no.3 of the RTI Application in the backdrop of the central subject matter of the RTI Application and even the FAA failed to take note of the scope for intervention in the CPIO’s reply to this extent. Now, having clarified the import of point no.3 of the RTI Application, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the Appellant incorporating the relevant extract of the minutes of the governing council after redacting any third party as well as confidential information as per Section (10) of the RTI Act. The said information shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant by the CPIO within 15 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission. As regards, the information sought for at points 5 & 6 of the RTI Application, considering the clarification based nature of the RTI queries, the CPIO’s reply cannot be called into question. Nonetheless, the written submissions filed by the CPIO on 18.04.2024 appear to be providing some clarity to the averred points and therefore, the CPIO shall ensure service of a copy of the said written submissions to the Appellant immediately upon the receipt of this order, if not already served.

9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shanmugam V. v. M/o. Chemicals & Fertilizers, CIC/CIPET/A/2023/601004; Date of Decision: 29.04.2024

CIPET Administrative Manual and copy of the Minutes of the Governing Council were sought claiming such information should be in the public domain u/s 4(1)(b)(v) - CIC: Provide the information after redacting third party and confidential information u/s 10

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.