PIO informed the Appellant that the information sought is not available in their office and transferred the application to Bangalore Development Authority u/s 6(3) - Appellant did not approach the transferee Public Authority - CIC: No intervention needed
15 Apr, 2024
PIO categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is not available in their office and transferred the RTI application to the concerned PIO of Bangalore Development Authority of the State Government u/s 6(3) - CIC: PIO has given a timely response to the Appellant informing him the factual position in the matter; Had the Appellant been actually interested in getting information, he would have approached the transferee Public Authority to know the actual status of the information; Appellant wants to pressurize the Respondent to create an information which is not in their record - CIC: Appellant cannot raise fresh queries/issues at the stage of first appeal/second appeal
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.11.2022 seeking the following information:
“Issue certified copies of intimation made by Bangalore Development Authority regarding the date of financial closure and final approval of the project by the concerned authorities, commencing the land development work and start of production operation of the project (Dr. K. Shivaramkaranth layout).”
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 28.12.2022 stating as under:
“The information sought relates to Bangalore Development Authority. Therefore, the application is transferred to them under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005 for providing the information under the RTI Act 2005.”
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.01.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 13.01.2023, held as under:
“On perusal of records, it is observed that the CPIO has taken appropriate action. However, considering the request of appellant, CPIO is hereby directed to go through the concern raised by him in the said appeal and take further action, as required, within 15 days of issue of this order.”
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Dr. S Prabhu, Scientist & CPIO and Shri R S Bora, DS present in person.
The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that vide their letter dated 28.12.2022, they have categorically informed the Appellant that his RTI application was transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the PIO, Bangalore Development Authority (which is a separate Public Authority under the State Government) for appropriate reply in the matter.
Upon being queried from the Commission, the Respondent submitted that inadvertently, the directions given by the FAA was not complied with.
Decision:
The Commission observes from perusal of records that the main premise of the instant appeal was non-receipt of desired information from the Respondent.
The Commission observes that the CPIO categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is not available in their office and transferred the RTI application to the concerned PIO of Bangalore Development Authority under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, which is separate Public Authority under the State Government.
It is an admitted fact that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he is not expected to create information as per the desire of the Appellant. As per 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, the reasons /opinions /advises /rules can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the Public Authority.
The Commission further observes that the CPIO has given a timely response to the Appellant informing him the factual position in the matter. Had the Appellant been actually interested in getting information, he would have approached the transferee/ recipient Public Authority to know the actual status of the information. But the Appellant in the present case filed the first appeal with present Respondent Public Authority. This shows that the Appellant wants to pressurize the Respondent to create an information which is not in their record.
The Commission further observes that the Appellant cannot raise fresh queries/issues at the stage of first appeal/second appeal. Therefore, the directions given by the FAA to the CPIO that “to go through the concern raised by him in the said appeal and take further action, as required, within 15 days of issue of this order.” is not sustainable in the present case. Hence, partial order of the FAA is set-aside.
The Commission finds no infirmity in the reply of the CPIO and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
No intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appellant is advised to approach appropriate authority to obtain the information.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Information Commissioner
Citation: Vasanth Kumar V M v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, CIC/MOENF/A/2023/613465; Date of Decision: 18-03-2024