Information: Section 2(f) of the RTI Act
Information is defined u/s 2(f) as under:
“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.
Four orders on various points connected with “Information” are briefly reproduced hereunder:
The applicant in most of his queries, wanted to know about the reasons why the Central Vigilance Officers (CVOs) of a number of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) are not working/ functioning – he has assumed that the CVOs of PSUs are not functioning properly and wants the CPIO of the CVC to provide the reasons – the Commission held that the right to information cannot be used to seek either confirmation or rebuttal of one’s personal assumption, as in this case. Information has been defined in section 2(f) to mean any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars etc. Wherever a citizen seeks any information, it must be contained in some records or file or documents in the possession of the public authority concerned. Therefore, the response of the CPIO of the CVC and other CPIOs, as well as that of the Appellate Authority appears to be absolutely in order.
[Omprakash Kashiram vs CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission – Order dated 12.03.2012 Citation: RTI III (2012) 140 (CIC)] l
Appellant submitted RTI application dated 14th August 2010 before the CPIO, Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi, seeking the details of functioning of Punjab and Sindh Bank through 44 points.
Decision Notice
The Commission notices that the Appellant has not asked for any specific information in his RTI Application and/or second appeal to the Commission, to be given by the Respondent Public Authority.
The Appellant was given an opportunity to explain the precise information sought, but has chosen not to attend the hearing. Also, the Appellant has not provided a copy of the Second appeal to the Respondents as per the RTI Act.
Thus, based on the submissions of the Respondents, the Commission is satisfied that information as held by the Respondents has been provided to the Appellant.
The Commission through this Order would also like to highlight the abuse of Transparency Act by the Appellant in asking voluminous questions under the Act (44 questions in this case) from the Public Authority and thereby dissipating the scarce resources of the Public Authority without meeting any larger public interest objective.
The Supreme Court in the case Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr v Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors/ CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6454 OF 2011 [RTIR II (2011) 242 (SC)], has stated:
“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 collection 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, tranquility 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”.
The Commission, in the light of the above observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, would like to inform the Appellant to ask a specific and limited question under the RTI Act, 2005 in the future and to use his cherished right given under the Transparency Act with greater responsibility.
[Kundan Kumar Sinha vs Department of Financial Services, New Delhi – Order dated 26.04.2012: Citation: RTIR II (2012) 185 (CIC)]
Briefly, the fact that emerged during the hearing is that the appellant was in the post of Sr. Assistant in the pay-scale of Rs. 6,300/-. The post of Jr. Engineer was advertised in the scale of Rs. 8,000/-. The appellant was selected for the post of Sr. Assistant. Before he joined, the post was down-graded to the scale of Rs. 6,300/-. The appellant after having joined the new post, has certain issues regarding promotion in that cadre.
Having heard the submissions of the parties, the Commission observes that the appellant has grievances regarding the pay scale. The RTI is not the forum for redressal of grievances. The appellant, in case he so desires, may file his grievance petition before the competent authority. As far as providing information under the RTI Act is concerned, requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant by the respondent.
[Vipin Prakash vs Airports Authority of India – Order dated 23.03.2012: Citation: RTIR II (2012) 150(CIC)]
Background
The Applicant filed his RTI application on 24.12.2010 with the PIO Railway Board stating that his pay fixation has been done incorrectly and requesting the PIO to rectify the same. He also sought a copy of the pay fixation chart of his Junior, one Mr Ram, who is drawing a higher salary than him. The PIO provided some information, dissatisfied with which the Applicant filed his first appeal seeking the rule based on which his salary was fixed. The Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal on 6.09.2011 holding that information provided is complete and as available in the records. The Applicant thereafter filed his second appeal stating that he is not satisfied with the information.
Decision
The Appellant requested the Commission during the hearing to direct the public Authorities to fix his pay correctly. The Commission, however, holds that the Appellant is not seeking any information as available in the records and therefore the relief being sought by him cannot be granted. It is however, recommended that the PIO clarify to the Appellant about how his pay has been fixed based on the 6th Pay Commission recommendations and also to provide him with a copy of his pay fixation chart preferably by 15th May 2012.
The appeal is disposed of with the above recommendation and the case is closed.
[Rajendra Singh vs Bhavan, New Delhi-Order dated 11.04.2012:Citation: RTIR II (2012) 177 (CIC)]
