CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000584/12438
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000584
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Vishal Narula
House No. 13/86 Old Talwandi Road
Zira 142047 District Ferozpur,
Punjab
Respondent : PIO & Chief Legal Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Law Department (HQ)
Dr. SPM Civic Center, Minto Road,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 15/12/2010
PIO replied on : 23/12/2010
First Appeal filed on : 14/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 31/01/2011
Second Appeal received on : 01/03/2011
Information Sought:
The applicant sought opinion/advice of the Law Department, MCD on the opinion given by the Asst.
Law officer, MCD (West Zone) on a particular case.
PIO`s Reply:
No such opinion is available on record. Any expression of opinion which does not already exist on
record of the Public Authority amounts to creation of new information which is outside the scope of
the RTI Act.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
According to the applicant he should be given the opinion/advice under Section 2 (f);if a prior
opinion given by ALO, West zone is right or wrong.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Since the information sought by the appellant is not available on record, no direction could be given
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The applicant is not satisfied with the grounds for the refusal of information.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Vishal Narula;
Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant admits that he has received all the information available on the records. He
wants an opinion/advice about whether the opinion given by Mr. R. S. Yadav the then ALO,
MCD(West Zone) is correct or not. The Appellant states that he believes he must be given an opinion
by the PIO since the words opinion/advices have been mentioned in the definition of information in
Section-2(f). Section 2(f) of the RTI Act states, “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;”. Hence the Appellant claims that when a citizen asks for an opinion
on something on record of any action of a public authority the PIO must provide such opinion or
advice. The words opinions, advices mentioned in Section 2(f) clearly means opinion or advices which
are on record. It is because of these words that file notings are available under the Right to
Information. The Act does not expect a PIO to form opinions and give them to citizens under RTI. The
law has not said this and if government were to operate in this fashion no government will be able to
function.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records has been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
19 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)