In this article, I cover a few decisions of CIC and one of H.C, basically to inform briefly the views of CIC/H.C on the subjects covered.
Section 2(f) – Information:
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 7265/2007 dated 25th September 2009 has observed as follows:
“Information as defined in section 2(f) means details or material available with the public authority. The later portion of section 2(f) expands the definition to include details or material which can be accessed under any other law from others. The two definitions have to be read harmoniously. The term held by or under the control of any public authority in section 2(j) of the RTI Act has to be read in a manner that it effectuates and is in harmony with the definition of the term information in section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is well settled that an interpretation which renders another provision or part thereof redundant or superfluous should be avoided. Information as defined in section 2 (f) of the RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information relating to any private body which can be accessed by any public authority under any law for the time being in force. Therefore, if a public authority has a right and is entitled to access information from a private body, under any other law, it is information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act.”
[WP (C) No. 7265/2007 dated 25th September 2009]
Section 2(f) – Information:
After hearing both the parties and on perusal of documents, the Commission observes that as deserving as the appellant might be for the post of Social Worker, he cannot ask interrogative questions from a public authority under the Act. The public authority is not bound to answer queries like whether he would be considered for the post since he has crossed the age limit or whether he will be granted any age relaxation and whether his merit will be considered or not. Interrogative queries viz. “How/Why/ When” do not come under the ambit of the RTI Act.
In Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. Goa State Information Commission (W.P.No. 419 of 2007), the High Court of Bombay, in its order dated 03.04.2008, held:
“The definition (of information) 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 things 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.”
[G. Senthil Kumar vs. Dr. Raman, DoH, Directorate of Health & Family Welfare Services, Puducherry – File No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000838-YA: Decided: 28.05.2014]
Section 6(1) &7(1) of the RTI Act:
This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 03-05- 2012 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on twelve points. The CPIO responded on 04-06-2012 and asked the Appellant to deposit photocopying charges, amounting to Rs. 48, to obtain the information running into 24 pages. The CPIO also asked the Appellant to deposit postal charges of Rs. 25.
We note that no further action pending on this RTI application on the part of the Respondents. We also note that the CPIO erred in asking for postal charge of Rs. 25. Accordingly, we direct the CPIO that in case the Appellant deposits the amount of Rs. 48, the information running into 24 pages should be provided to him, within 15 days of deposit of the above amount by him.
[Navneet Singhania vs. CPIO, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office: Ranjeet Avenue, Amritsar – File No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000711/SH: Decided 05-05-2014]
Section 7(1) of the RTI Act:
The Appellant stated that the FAA had not given him a personal hearing despite his request to that effect. In this context, we advice the FAA that in the interest of natural justice, he should give a personal hearing, in case requested by a person filing an appeal to him on an RTI matter.
The Appellant has drawn our attention to the fact that the CPIO has not been mentioning his name in his replies to RTI applications. In this context, we inform the Respondents the decision of the Commission that the CPIOs and FAAs should mention their name, address, telephone and fax number in all correspondence on RTI matters. The CPIO is directed to ensure compliance with the above decision of the Commission.
[Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury vs. CPIO, Union Bank of India, Lucknow – File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001508/SH: decided on 23-05-2014]
If readers appreciate this kind of my write ups, I shall continue whenever any landmark decision is not available.
