Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/WB/A/2009/001001SM
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 15 April 2011
Date of decision : 15 April 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri K Tholasiram
Retd. District Education Officer,
28, Cholan Salai, Thiruchirappalli 620 021.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Prime Minister's Office,
South Block,
New Delhi.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Smt. Sanjukta Ray, DS & CPIO,
(ii) Shri Sanjeev Gupta, SO & CAPIO,
(iii) Shri Subhendu Hota, SO & CAPIO
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Trichy studio of the NIC while the Respondent was present in our
chamber. We heard their submissions.
3. The Appellant had wanted to know why he was not provided any relief
from the Prime Minister’s relief fund. The CPIO had clarified the basis on which
CIC/WB/A/2009/001001SM
relief was provided from the PM’s relief fund. It appears that the Appellant had
come to the CIC earlier in second appeal in the very same matter and that the
CIC had decided his second appeal (CIC/WB/A/2008/01284) in its order dated
18 January 2010 by upholding the decision of the CPIO.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant insisted that he should be provided
some relief just as some others had been provided on the basis of
recommendations made by some central minister. The Respondent clarified
that the grant of relief was in the domain of the discretionary decisionmaking
powers of the competent authority especially in the background that a very
large number of citizens sought relief from this fund while only a few could be
provided any such relief due to the paucity of funds. Therefore, she explained
that it was not possible to give any particular reason why the Appellant had not
been provided any relief and, in any case, there is no record in existence to
show why the Appellant had not been provided any relief by the authorities.
5. Under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the CPIO is obliged to disclose
any information which exists; she cannot be compelled to generate information
or to offer imaginary reasons in support of any decision taken by the
government. We find nothing wrong in the reply of the CPIO.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
CIC/WB/A/2009/001001SM
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/WB/A/2009/001001SM