Details of employees who had availed LTC 80 ticket from 2010 to 2017 - CIC: CPIO is neither obliged to compile any fresh data which entails disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority nor is he expected to provide interpretation

O R D E R

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Directorate Of Printing, New Delhi seeking following information:-

1. “No. of employees who had availed LTC 80 ticket from 2010 to 2017. Please provide their details along with name.

2. Name and on. of employees who had availed LTC 80 ticket from 2010 to 2017 in Minto Road, Mayapuri & Faridabad office.

3. No. of SC/ST employees who had availed LTC 80 ticket from 2010 to 2017.

4. Name of the airlines by which these employees had travelled on LTC 80 ticket.

5. Details of any CAG report against these employees.”

2. The CPIO responded on 12-10-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 02-11-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 26-12- 2018. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant, Mr. Om Prakash attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. Shesh Kumar, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.

4. The appellant contended that the CPIO is supposed to provide the information which is held by him in whatever form it is available and therefore, the CPIO cannot simply deny the information on the premise that it is not contained in a single file.

5. The respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant is not available in a compiled form in a single file and the data relates to a very long period ranging from 2010 to 2017 which is spread over several files. It would also require analysing the details of LTC claimed by each employee after visiting the distinct files. The information in the manner sought by the appellant would involve extensive compilation from voluminous records by a significant number of officials and would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority from the efficient discharge of its normal functions. Therefore, it attracts the provisions of Section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of the RTI Act, 2005, which reads as under:-

“(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.”

6. The respondent further contended that the appellant has also not indicated about any specific CAG report and therefore, it is an arduous task to go through each and every CAG report and analyse the same in order to cull out the adverse entry in respect of the LTC claimed by their employees. They have claimed exemption u/Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005 for denying the personal details of their employees.

Decision:

7. This Commission observes that the appellant has sought very wide information regarding LTC availed by the employees of the public authority from 2010 to 2017. The respondent has apprised the Commission that such details are not contained in a single file and it requires going through each and every file since the year 2010 in order to cull out the information speared over several files. Even no specific CAG report has been indicated by the appellant and instead he expects the CPIO to make a thorough search and thereafter, analyse the adverse entry in respect of the LTC claimed by their employees. Such interpretation cannot be provided to the appellant. It is observed that the CPIO cannot be expected to compile the information which requires disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority. On this aspect, it is apt to mention the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 dated 09/08/2011 titled as Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., wherein, it was observed as under:-

“Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing ‘information furnishing’, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.”

8. In light of the factual matrix of the case and the legal principle enunciated in the aforesaid case-law, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the CPIO is neither obliged to compile any fresh data which entails disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority nor is he expected to provide interpretation of documents to the appellant. Further, the respondent has rightly claimed the exemption u/Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005 for denying the personal details of their employees. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Neeraj Kumar Gupta

Information Commissioner 

Citation: Om Prakash v. Directorate of Printing in Second Appeal No. CIC/DOFPR/A/2019/103726, Date of decision: 20-10-2020