CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002849/6184
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002849
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Tripta Kaur
A 25 A, Kikar Chowk, Sunday Bazar,
Chander Vihar, Nilothi Extension,
Delhi- 110041.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Mr K S Rawat
Government of NCT of Delhi.
O/o District and Sessions Judge,
Administrative Branch-I, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 08/05/2009 PIO replied : 08/05/2009 First appeal filed on : 16/05/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 18/07/2009 Second Appeal received on : 30/10/2009 Date of Notice of Hearing : 27/11/2009 Hearing Held on : 31/12/2009
Information Sought (with reference to a petition filed in ACMM Rohini Court by the Appellant
against her husband related to ‘protection of women from domestic violence’ and also
maintainability of the application in an ex-parte divorce case).
a) Whether it is mandatory to appoint a protection officer and submit a DIR application before
arguments are heard to ensure ‘maintainability’ of the application.
b) Reasons for raising the ex-parte divorce proceedings and application of maintainability
arguments before P.O.F.F especially when in the petition all details were mentioned.
Reply of the PIO
The PIO stated that the Appellant’s query sought a personal opinion of the PIO. The information
therefore could not be provided to the Appellant under section 2(f) (j) of RTI Act.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA disposed off the case on the ground that the Appellant cannot seek the reasons for a
decision and that the Appellant should have taken recourse to other remedies. He further stated
that Appellant was not aware of this legal position and had assured him that she ‘would from
now on seek proper advice for the information that she now required’.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA. Appellant further stated that she was not informed
about the date of hearing before FAA. It was by sheer coincidence that she was there at the office
on the day of hearing. The PIO should have replied to the RTI application in the first place.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Ms. Tripta Kaur;
Respondent : Absent;
The appellant is clearly seeking an opinion on the matter of law. The appellant feels that she has
a right to seek an opinion under the RTI Act since Section 2(f) of the RTI Act mentions
“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;”.
The Appellant feels that since the word opinion is mentioned the provision and since it is an
addition to the word records and documents it means that the PIO should give an opinion which
must be created to answer a RTI query. The Commission clarifies that the word opinion in the
provision relates to opinion available in the form of a written opinion as file notings or an
opinion available in the electronic form. Information can not mean that opinions must be created
by the PIO.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
What is sought is not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI
Act.
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
31 December 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)