When appellant’s application will be placed for consideration before the Rajya Sabha? CIC: Query is in the nature of eliciting answer to a future event; No obligation to answer queries with prefixes, such as, why, what, when and whether under the RTI Act
29 Mar, 2023Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information in respect of his letter dated 28/11/2019 addressed to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha:
- As to when the above said application will be placed for consideration before the Rajya Sabha.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The legal counsel of the submitted that the appellant was not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO and FAA. He submitted that as per the communication with the Bihar Secretariat, the representation in question was not received in their office. He therefore requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to resend the same for further action in the interest of justice.
The CPIO submitted that the appellant was informed vide letter dated 26.11.2021 that the letter representation in question was not received in the office of the respondent. On further inquiry, it was found that the appellant had inadvertently sent the RTI application at the residence of the Hon’ble Vice President. He further stated that the Vice President’s Secretariat had forwarded the representation to the Chief Secretary, Bihar. The appellant was intimated about the same vide letter dated 16.12.2021. However, on being queried by the Commission if the petition can be sent again by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to the Bihar Secretariat, he replied in the affirmative.
Observations:
The Commission at the outset noted that the query of the appellant is in the nature of eliciting answer to a future event. The RTI Act, 2005 does not cast on the CPIO any obligation to answer queries, in which the seeker of information attempts to elicit answer to the questions with prefixes, such as, why, what, when and whether. The Commission on a perusal of the contents of the RTI application opined that the query of the appellant was not 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; “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, 2005. In this regard, reliance was placed on the observations of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], wherein it was held as under:
“….. In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by 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; as follows.
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; -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;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.”
Nonetheless, from the perusal of the case records, it is apparent that the public authorities involved in the instant case have supplied the available information regarding the letter petition to the appellant, which is beyond the scope of the RTI framework. Therefore, the steps taken by the CPIO in handling the RTI application are satisfactory.
However, as per the submissions that transpired during the hearing, the Commission directed the CPIO to send the letter petition of the appellant to the Bihar Secretariat for further action.
Decision:
In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs the CPIO to forward the letter petition of the appellant dated 28.11.2019 to the Chief Secretary, Bihar under intimation to the appellant within 3 days of the receipt of this order.
The appeal, therefore, stands disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Santosh Kumar Pandit v. Parliament of India Rajya Sabha Secretariat, File no.: - CIC/PAROI/A/2022/137994, Date of Decision: 08/02/2023