CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building
(Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus
New Delhi -110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000452/3072
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000452
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. D.S. Bisht,
SI/Fire D.S. Bisht, FSTI,
NISA Complex, Post – Hakimpet,
District-Rangareddy,
Hydrabad, Andhra Pradesh.
Respondent : Mr. K.S. Rawat’
Superintendent Engineer & PIO,
Tis Hazari Courts,
Office of the District & Sessions Judge,
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 15/10/2008 PIO replied : 01/11/2008 First Appeal filed on : 27/11/2008 First Appellate Authority order : 18/12/2008 Second Application received on : 20/03/2009 Detail of required information:-
1. Whether the renewal Provident Fund advance general Provident Fund,
professional — imposed by State Govt., Education Fund, Sports Fund, Unite
Welfare Fund messing deductions etc should comes under legal deduction or
not.
2. What heads comes under the salary (Basic, dearness pay, dearness allowance
etc).
3. Whether the allowance like HRA, Training allowance, City Compensations
allowance, Newly inducted transport allowance in 6th Pay Commission forces,
cost of Ration for Paramilitaries forces school comes under the salary or not.
The PIO replied.
I refer to your application moved on the matter cited as subject received vide
diary no. 10677/D dated 31/10/2008 (ID No. 1217) from the office of Assistant
Public Information Officer / Administrative Officer, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
In this regard, it is to inform you that after going through the query of your
application, it is found that your are seeking the opinion of the PIO and the same does
not fall within the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
“This appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act has been filed against the order
passed by the PIO communicated to the appellant vide office letter no.
78997/Admn..I/RTI/2008 dated 01.11.2008 on an application moved by the appellant
for seeking information.
By moving the application before the PIO, the appellant had asked him to give an
opinion on the question whether certain funds/allowances mentioned in the
application were liable to legal deductions while paying maintenance allowance to a
wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is evident that the appellant had nor sought any
information relating to a matter relating to the office of the Ld. District & Sessions
Judge, Delhi and the appellant had asked for his general /personal opinion. The PIO
has referred to point 5.62 on page 5.105 of V.K. Puri’s Practical Handbook on RTI
wherein it has been observed that personal opinion is not to be given. Therefore, I do
not find any infirmity in the order passed by the PIO. The appeal is devoid of any
merit”.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. D.S. Bisht
Respondent : Absent
The PIO and the First appellate have correctly given the ruling that the PIO cannot
Give clarifications which are not a matter of any record. What the appellant is
Seeking is not information as defined under Section 2 (f) of the Act.
Decision:
The appeal is dimissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
4 May 2009.
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)