- Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act:
• The appellant sought huge information from the postal Department, Bangalore about:
1. The total number of account holders in postal savings viz. saving bank, MIS, PPF etc. at the respective post offices in Bangalore Urban Area during the financial years 2009–2010 & 2010–2011 respectively.
2. The monthly turnover/collections at the above post offices during the financial years 2009–2010 & 2010–2011.
CPIO replied and stated that the information requested by the appellant is not being compiled at the central level and was scattered in 187 sub-post offices and if they had undertaken this work it would have disproportionately diverted the resources of the public authority – Whether the CPIO should collect and compile the information, which is not available in his office, from other subordinate offices and furnish the same to the applicant? – the Commission held that a CPIO is expected to provide the information available with him and he is not required to collect and compile the information on the demand of a requester nor he is expected to create a fresh one merely because someone has asked for it.
Decision notice
The main issue raised by the appellant is whether the CPIO should collect and compile the information, which is not available in his office, from other subordinate offices and furnish the same to the applicant. On this issue the Commission has already observed, vide Decision No. 216/IC(A)2006. File No. CIC/MA/A2006/00608 dated 31-08-2006, as under:-
“Transparency in functioning of public authorities is expected to be ensured through the exercise of right to know, so that a citizen can scrutinise the fairness and objectivity of every public action. This objective cannot be achieved unless the information that is created and generated by public bodies is disclosed in the form in which it exists with them. Therefore, information is to be provided in the form in which it is sought, u/s. 7(9) of the Act. and, if it does not exist in the form in which it is asked for and provided to the applicant, there is no way that proper scrutiny of public action could be made to determine any deviations from the established practices or accepted policies”.
Thus, a CPIO is expected to provide the information available with him. He is not required to collect and compile the information on the demand of requester nor is he expected to create a fresh one merely because someone has asked for it. Because, such attempts would not allow for scrutiny of public action to detect and determine the nature and extent of deviation from the accepted policies. In view of the forgoing, the CPIO’s representative’s submissions are upheld in so far as they relate to the collecting and compiling of data from 187 sub-post offices.
The Commission, however, agrees with the appellant’s argument regarding non-supply of information by the CPIO requested in query 2 of his RTI application dated 21-10-2011. The CPIO should either have sought the assistance of his counterpart in the office of the Director of Accounts (Postal) Bangalore or transferred this part of the RTI application to him for supply of information. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to furnish the information (requested in query 2) to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. It is, however, clarified that the information as available on record with the Director of Accounts (Postal) should be provided and there is no need to collect and/or compile any data.
[S.C. Chopra vs. Department of posts, Karnataka Circle, Bangalore: Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2012/000481/2393 dated 02-05-2013]
• The appellant sought following information from PIO of EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi:
1. Provide details of case history with all relevant case papers, photocopies of all documents submitted, citations referred to by the Appellant and the Respondent in the above referred case/appeal.
2. Details of applicable penalty payable by the Institution concerned for the default as decided and levied by the Appellant Tribunal.
3. Details of exemption in penalty and relief, if granted in the matter.
4. Details as to, can the appellant tribunal in case of double default exempt penalty or grant any relief to the appellant/institution.
5. Whether the attachments enclosed qualify the institution concerned for any relief in penalty amount.
6. Status report of the case/appeal as of now.
The appellant’s contention before CIC was that PIO has not given information sought in the RTI Application. He stated that a fee of Rs. 118 has been wrongly charged from him for provision of information in violation of sections 7(3)(a) & 7(6) of the RTI Act and the documents supplied do not answer his queries. The CPIO’s representatives stated that they (‘Employees Provident Fund Appellant Tribunal’) are a judicial forum and as per their rules they are required to charge a fee of Rs.10 per page for supply of certified copies of decisions, however, they will refund the charges. As regards the appellant’s second contention that the documents supplied do not answer his queries, the CPIO’s representative argued that under the RTI Act the CPIO is required to provide the information/documents as available on record and is not expected to answer queries/provide interpretation(s)/clarification(s); he added that all the documents contained in the relevant file have already been forwarded to the appellant.
Decision notice
The RTI act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries in which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions. The Petitioner’s right extends only to seek information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act either by pinpointing the file, document, paper or records etc. or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified public authority. It is noted that in the matter at hand copies of all documents contained in the file have been provided and there is no further information/ document available which can be furnished.
As stated by the CPIO’s representative the fee of Rs. 118 should be refunded to the appellant within 7 days from the date receipt of this order.
[ Rashad Shaikh vs. PIO, EPF Tribunal New Delhi : Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2012/00512/2409 dated 06.05.2013]
