CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00903
Dated, the 26th December, 2008
Appellant : Shri Yogesh Sharma
Respondents : The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
This matter was heard on 18.12.2008. In response to Commission’s
hearing notice dated 31.10.2008, appellant was present in person, whereas the
respondents were represented by Shri P.K. Jha, DGM & CPIO and
Shri M. Sinha, Manager, RTI Cell.
2. Appellant’s RTI-application is dated 29.01.2008, which was replied to
through an interim response by CPIO which was dated 07.03.2008. The final
reply of the CPIO was provided to the appellant on 04.04.2008 and the
first-appeal was decided by the Appellate Authority on 23.06.2008.
3. During hearing, appellant stated that in his RTI-request of 29.01.2008 he
had made 22 queries. The present second-appeal is related to his queries at
Sl.Nos.12, 16, 17, and 18. These queries read as follows:-
“12. Please provide information in regard to the posts in which there
was shortage of staff and posts in which there was surplus staff as
on 31.12.2006 and 31.12.2007.
16. Is it possible to change the place of transfer of an employee even
after issuing transfer orders under the Job Rotation, Transfer and
Mobilety [sic] Policy for Supervisory, Clericals and Sub ordinate
Staff. If so, on what basis these changes can be made? Please
provide certified copies of the Rules.
17. Is it possible to retain an employee without any order / cancel the
transfer even after issuing transfer orders under the Job Rotation,
Transfer and Mobilety [sic] Policy for Supervisory, Clericals and
Sub ordinate Staff?
18. Whether it is possible to open the office for working on Saturday /
Sunday and other holidays and to expend showing excess work in
any office? If so, is it possible to show surplus staff even in such
offices?”
Page 1 of 3
Query number 12: Respondents stated during hearing that the information
requested through this query by the appellant is not centrally maintained and had
to be collected from the public authority’s 23 Regional Offices. They explained
that all deployment of staff is not handled centrally and is frequently delegated to
Regional Offices. If the information requested by the appellant is to be provided,
it will need substantial effort on the part of the public authority which will be
both time-consuming and expensive causing unavoidable diversion of its
resources and funds. It was because of this reason that rather than deny the
information to the appellant under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, he was called
upon to bear the cost of transmission of this massive information under the
provision for further-fee / cost under Section 7(3) of the RTI Act.
Appellant has questioned the demand of Rs.12,000/- as further-fee / cost
for providing this item of information to the appellant by the respondents.
Decision:
Considering the fact that this information is admittedly spread across
several regions of the public authority’s office and is not centrally maintained, it
is unavoidable that collecting such information will involve diversion of the
public authority’s resources which brings the matter within the scope of Section
7(9) of the RTI Act. Respondents had attempted a via-media to provide to the
appellant the information by collecting the cost of providing the information to
him but appellant apparently appears unwilling to pay the cost.
It is, therefore, held that as this information is substantial, not held at a
common point, needs to be collected from 23 Regional Offices of the
respondents and involves considerable expense, time and effort, it comes within
the scope of Section 7(9) of the Act and is, therefore, not to be disclosed.
There shall be no disclosure obligation for this item of information.
Items 16, 17 and 18: It is quite obvious that the tone and the tenor of these
queries are to obtain from the respondents their explanations, advice and opinion
regarding the subject mentioned in these queries. Respondents have declined to
disclose it as they were not obliged to provide any information to the applicant
which did not meet the definition of information as spelt-out in Section 2(f) of
the RTI Act.
Decision:
Respondents are wholly correct in taking the position they have.
Appellant is wrong in assuming that the words “advice” and “opinion”
mentioned in Section 2(f) entitle him to receive a public authority’s advice or
Page 2 of 3
opinion. As has been explained in Commission’s decision in Aakash Aggarwal
Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal; Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00446; Date of
Decision: 18.12.2006 the words “advices” and “opinions” appearing in Section
2(f) only referred to the opinions and advices as available on the file / records of
the public authority. These do not mean that any applicant can call upon the
public authority to provide to him free advice and opinion corresponding to the
concerns the appellant may wish to raise. RTI Act does not give to an applicant
the right to treat the office of the public authority as his free advisers or
consultants.
The decision of the respondents not to disclose this information is upheld.
4. Appeal is disposed of with these directions.
5. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 3 of 3