CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000273
Dated, the 11 August, 2010.
th
Appellant : Shri Ghanshyam Gupta
Respondent : Department of Expenditure
s
This secondappeal originated in appellant’s RTIapplication dated
07.10.2009, replied to by the CPIO on 28.10.2009. Appellate Authority
decided the matter through his order dated 11.01.2010.
2. Matter was heard partly through videoconference (VC) on
05.08.2010. Appellant was present at NIC VC facility at Indore, while the
respondents ― represented by Ms.Renu Jain, Deputy Secretary & CPIO
― were present at Commission’s office at New Delhi.
3. Respondents pointed out that the appellant’s RTIapplication dated
07.10.2009 was not so much a request for identifiable information within
the meaning of Section 2(f), but a series of queries regarding
interpretation of various terms and expressions. Most queries begin with
“what does the term …………….. is construed by the department..”
demanding that the public authority, viz. Department of Expenditure
explain it to him ‘through one or two examples’. There were hosts of
other queries focused on obtaining more such interpretations. There
were queries which were unrelated to the Department of Expenditure,
such as those about the Cadre of Inspectors of Central Excise and the
ACP Schemes for financial upgradation. They argued that appellant’s
queries were intended to establish an openended dialogue about
CIC_AT_A_2010_000273_M_39944.doc
Page 1 of 3
meanings, interpretations, reasons, etc., which he was not entitled to
seek under the RTI Act.
4. Appellant pointed out that he had asked for inspection of File
No.1/1/2008IC, in which, he believed, the issues which he had raised in
his RTIapplication were dealtwith.
5. During hearing, respondents stated that the impression about the
relationship between the abovementioned file and appellant’s RTI
queries, was entirely erroneous. The above file was one in which the
Department processed a number of different matters / issues and there
was no reason why appellant should be allowed to fish for information
which, the Department knows, was not in its control, not even in the file
appellant had mentioned.
6. This is not the only employee of the government, who in the wake
of the Sixth Pay Commission, has come up with a host of queries
regarding meanings and interpretations of the CPC’s report as well as the
actions taken by the Department of Expenditure. In all these cases, it
was the position taken by the Department that whatever decisions were
taken, following the CPC recommendation, were all in the public domain,
put on the websites from time to time, as well as in the departmental files
in which the specific queries or issues were dealtwith and then returned
to those Departments. The Department of Expenditure is disinclined to
be made answerable under RTI Act about meanings and interpretations
of words and expressions used in the CPC report or the documents
brought out by the Department. It is their contention that they could not
be asked to interpret these documents for the convenience of the
employees who use the RTIroute.
7. It has been the consistent position of this Commission that an
applicant for information can seek only such material which answers the
definition of ‘information’ under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Explanations,
CIC_AT_A_2010_000273_M_39944.doc
Page 2 of 3
reasons, interpretations and so on, did not qualify to be information under
Section 2(f). The High Court of Bombay at Goa, through its order dated
03.04.2008 in Dr.Celsa Pinto Vs. Goa State Information Commission
(W.P.No.419 of 2007) has upheld this position.
8. As the queries of the appellant lie beyond the scope of Section 2(f),
the public authority, viz. the Department of Expenditure cannot be
obligated to answer the same.
9. In the matter of appellant’s request for filenotings from the File No.
1/1/2008IC, I find that it was not mentioned in Appellate Authority’s order
dated 11.01.2010. Given what the respondents have stated about the
contents of this file, I am unable to comprehend the keenness of the
appellant to access it. Nevertheless, considering his anxiety about this
particular file, Appellate Authority is requested to have a fresh look at this
and to take a decision on whether this could be disclosed. In case
Appellate Authority decides against disclosure of this item of information,
she may record the reasons and communicate it to the appellant within
two weeks of the receipt of this order. In case a decision is made to allow
access to the appellant to the requested information, it may be
communicated to him within two weeks of the receipt of this order.
10. Appellant shall be free to bring this up in secondappeal after he
receives the decision of the Appellate Authority.
11. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
12. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONERp
CIC_AT_A_2010_000273_M_39944.doc
Page 3 of 3