{"id":43933,"date":"2010-06-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010"},"modified":"2017-03-22T02:34:00","modified_gmt":"2017-03-21T21:04:00","slug":"ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ms.Kanchan P Kashalkar vs Central Vigilance Comission on 4 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Ms.Kanchan P Kashalkar vs Central Vigilance Comission on 4 June, 2010<\/div>\n
                 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n         Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000359 & 356 dated 25-3-2009\n              Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\nAppellant:         Ms. Kanchan P. Kashalkar\nRespondent:        Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)\n                     Decision announced : 4.6.2010\n\n\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
      These are two appeals from Ms. Kanchan P. Kashalkar of Uran-Mora
\nRoad, Urban District Raigarh, M.P.\n<\/p>\n
File No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/00359
\n      In this case by an application of 1-5-08 received in CVC on 13-5-08,
\nMs. Kanchan Kashalkar sought the following information from CPIO Shri A.K.
\nGupta, Under Secretary, CVC:\n<\/p>\n
       “i)   Subject matter of information: Internal Notes submitted on
\n             each of our RTI applications\/ 1st appeal\/ second appeal
\n             made by us so far. Monthly report submitted by BOI to
\n             CVC i.e. CVO from August 2006 onwards. My complaint
\n             against Bank of India Official and correspondence
\n             thereon between BOI and me.”<\/p>\n
      This was followed by a series of questions on internal noting on Ms.
\nKanchan Kashalkar’s RTI applications. To this Ms. Kashalkar received a
\nresponse from CPIO dated 19-6-08 informing her as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “Part A of RTI application
\n       S.     File No.                    Date        Notin    Correspo
\n       No.                                            g\/       ndence\/
\n                                                      pages    letters\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        1.    CVC\/RTI\/06\/452\/39894        6.11.2006   02       02\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        2.    CVC\/RTI\/06\/452-45682        10.1.2007   00       01\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        3.    CVC\/RTI\/06\/675-49538        22.2.2007   32       04\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        4.    CVC\/RTI\/06\/675              23.1.2007   04       02\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        5.    CVC\/RTI\/APPO7\/035\/56        4.5.2007    02       16
\n              314<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        6.    CVC\/RTI\/APP\/CIC\/07\/01       31.8.2007   04       05
\n              1\/66847\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        7.    CVC\/RTI\/07\/152\/55941        7.5. 2007   04       04\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        8.    CVC\/RTI\/07\/451\/66438        9.5.2007    02       02\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        9.    CVC\/RTI\/APP\/07\/129\/72       8.11.2007   04       01
\n              864<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      1<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         10.   CVC\/RTI\/07\/855\/5214          3.3.2008      03       01<\/p>\n
       Part B of RTI Application:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (A)    Copies of note being provided-01\n       (B)    Copies of note sheets, correspondence being provided-\n              34<\/span>\n       (C)    Applicants request for information is in the form of a\n<\/pre>\n
              query, which does not constitute information falling within
\n              the purview of section 2 (f) of RTI Act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (D)    Copies of note sheets & your letter dated 23.1.2007-01
\n              03<\/span>
\n(E)           Information is denied 8 (1) (d), 8 (1) (e) and 8 (1) (j) r\/w
\nsection 11 of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
       The details requested is as above, you may remit the total
\n       amount of Rs. 250\/- for all the copies of information as intimated
\n       earlier.”\n<\/p>\n
       This was consequent to an initial response of 10-6-08 in which Ms.
\nKashalkar had been informed as below:\n<\/p>\n
        “A fees of Rs. 2\/- for each page (in A-4 or A-3 size paper) has
\n       been prescribed for providing the information under the Right to
\n       Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. Since
\n       the information received from CVC requested by you, would
\n       require photocopying of 125 pages, an amount of Rs. 250\/-
\n       (Rupees two hundred fifty only) may please be deposited in
\n       cash against proper receipt; or by demand draft or bankers
\n       cheque or Indian Postal order payable to the Section Officer,
\n       Central Vigilance Commission at New Delhi.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Appellant then moved an appeal dated 15-6-08 before Shri V.K. Gupta,
\nAddl. Secretary, CVC, on the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n
       “1.    At the outset I must state that I had asked for information
\n              in 2 parts. Under section ‘A’ I had asked information
\n              about step-by-step procedure of handling RTI application\/
\n              first appeal\/ 2nd appeal etc as detailed therein. Point e
\n              involved providing the copies of documents. Instead of
\n              providing information on all the points a, b, c, d, the CPIO
\n              with obvious malafide intention to delay\/ deny information
\n              has asked me remit Rs. 250\/- without giving no. of pages
\n              involved in point etc.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       2.     In part B of the application I had sought certain
\n              information more particularly detailed on points A to e
\n              therein. Each of this point does not require providing
\n              copy of the document. However, instead of providing
\n              information point by point and sum total at the end of the
\n              para towards of photocopying charges, as the
\n              Commission has done in the past in my other<\/p>\n
                                       2<\/span>
\n               applications.      Thus this also amounts to denial of
\n              information with malafide motive of delaying the
\n              information. Similarly if only demand for fee was to be
\n              made it could have been made much earlier without
\n              waiting for the expiry of 30 days period. Similarly he has
\n              not made any request for extension of time for providing
\n              the information in terms of section 7 (2) of RTI Act.
\n              Instead he is blatantly sating that a reply will be provided
\n              only after receipt of payment. Thus the reply part is
\n              unnecessarily linked with provision of document part.
\n              Thus information is held back for no convincing reason.
\n              In other words it is arbitrarily withheld thereby violating
\n              the provisions of the Act. The delaying tactic of denying
\n              information adopted by the Commission is to shield the
\n              erring officials of the Commission and Bank of India
\n              officials is clearly visible from the Commission’s letter.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       By his order of 15-7-08 Shri V.K. Gupta, Addl. Secretary decided as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
       “2.     On examining the documents and connected papers
\n               pertaining to this appeal and the reply of CPIO with
\n               reference to the RTI application of the appellant, I find
\n               that CPIO has requested the appellant to deposit Rs.
\n               250\/- towards supplying the information sought under
\n               various points. Further, on the request over telephone,
\n               the CPIO furnished to the appellant vide letter dated
\n               19.6.2008. I find the appellant has preferred an appeal
\n               on CPIO’s interim communication dated 10.6.2008
\n               requiring the appellant to deposit money and even after
\n               providing complete details of information proposed to be
\n               supplied vide letter dated 19.6.2008, appellant has not till
\n               date deposited an amount of Rs. 250\/- for the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.             As regards, the issues raised in appeal, I find that the
\nCPIO after collecting details of information from various branches of
\nthe Commission has responded within 30 days to the application of the
\nappellant and there is no delay on this count. The next issue raised by
\nthe appellant is that she had sought information under section A points\n<\/p>\n
(a) to (d) i.e. information on step by step procedure of handling and
\nprocessing of RTI applications, first appeal, second appeal and
\nauthority that approves draft reply in RTI matters and that this
\ninformation does not involve supply of copies etc. On considering this
\nissue, I am of the view that this Commission follows procedures
\nprescribed in the RTI Act, 2005 and Govt. of India rules prescribed
\ntherein under Right to Information (regulation fee and cost) Rules 2005
\nin processing all matters connecting with RTI Applications, first appeal
\nand second appeal. Authorities appointed under the RTI Act like
\nCPIO’s and appellate authority approves the draft reply in respective
\nmatters.\n<\/p>\n
                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
 4.            In so far as the issue of not providing a speaking or point-
\nwise reply by CPIO is concerned, I find that CPIO had initially only sent
\nan interim letter dated 10.6.2008 to the appellant and had also stated
\npoint-wise reply would be furnished later.\n<\/p>\n
5.            Taking into account all facts and circumstances of the
\nappeal, I direct the CPIO to provide all information proposed to be
\nsupplied vide CPIO’s letter dated 10.6.2008 and 19.6.2008 to the
\nappellant within 10 days of issue of this order.”\n<\/p>\n
           In her second appeal before us appellant Ms. Kanchan Kashalkar’s
\nprayer is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           “Under the circumstances I pray that the information left
\n           out as stated above (A of B, E of B on page 3 C, D & E of B
\n           sought by me be provided to me & suitable direction be
\n           given to CVC for this purpose. The CPIO & AA be penalized
\n           for handling the application\/ appeal in a casual &
\n           lackadaisical manner.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           However, in her grounds for appeal appellant had submitted that “upon
\nAA’s order CPIO provided copies of documents sought by me1. However, he
\nhas not provided A of B part which is still withheld from me for reasons best
\nknown to CPIO and AA viz the copy of note approved by the Commission
\nwhere in it was decided to display the names of penalized officers working in
\norganization under CVC jurisdiction on the CVC website as stated above in
\nprayer part which was not done until then. The note will give an idea of the
\nthought process that has goes into behind the action. ”\n<\/p>\n
File No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/00356
\n           In this case the request of Ms. Kashalkar dated 1-5-08 (also received
\nby CVC on 13-5-08) is as below:\n<\/p>\n
           “Annual report of the Commission for the year 2006 and
\n           Vigilance Administration activity of the Commission.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The details sought have been elucidated in a series of questions A (1)
\nto (11) and B (A) to (I).           In this case the response of CPIO dated 11-6-08 is
\nagain point-wise as below:\n<\/p>\n
           “2.    Para & point-wise reply to your application is as under: –<\/p>\n
           Para ‘A’
\n           Point 1: The Annual Report of the Commission for the year 2006
\n           was submitted to the President of India on 26.6.2007 and<\/p>\n
1<\/span>
\n    Underlined by us for emphasis<\/p>\n
                                                4<\/span>
\n forwarded to the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT),
\nGOI on 4.12.2007 for laying the same in the Parliament.
\nPoint 2: The Commission’s office order No. 74\/12\/05dated
\n21.12.2005 was issued with reference to the modification of the
\ndefinition of vigilance angle.\n<\/p>\n
Point 3: Copies of file noting, internal note and related papers
\nconsisting of nine pages is enclosed for information. You are
\nrequested to send Rs. 18\/- towards cost of supplying nine pages
\n(Rs. 2\/- per page) in the prescribed code (Cash \/DD\/ IPO in the
\nname of Section Officer CVC, New Delhi).\n<\/p>\n
Point 4: No such time frame has been fixed by the Commission
\nin this regard. However, in practice it depends on a case-to-
\ncase basis.\n<\/p>\n
Point 5: The normal channels of submission of files related to
\neach branch are also followed in monitoring of complaints. The
\ndesignations and authorities are available in the channel of
\nsubmission of files, information of which is given on Commission
\nwebsite https:\/\/www.cvc.nic.in under RTI section.
\nPoint 6: The Commission takes suitable action as deemed fit.
\nPoint 7: No such specific data\/ information is maintained in the
\nCommission on the points mentioned by the applicant and as
\nsuch there is no information.\n<\/p>\n
Point 8: No modification has been made in the monthly report
\nformat.\n<\/p>\n
Point 9 & 10: Complaint\/ representation sent in July 2006 was
\nprocessed by the Commission in the case file of Shri P. D.
\nKashalkar, as the matters were connected\/ closely related.
\nHence, the said complaint of the applicant does not constitute or
\ninclude in the information o complaints received and disposed
\nreflected in table 5 at page 27 of the Annual Report 2006.
\nPoint 10 (second): Non-vigilance is such complaints\/ issues
\nwherein allegations are administrative in nature. Officials not
\nfalling under Commission’s jurisdiction are the ones who belong
\nto the categories, which are not defined in section 8 of CVC Act,
\n2003.\n<\/p>\n
Point 11: As the complaint of July 2006 was sent by the
\nCommission to the CVO, Bank of India for necessary action,
\nCommission does not expect any reply\/ report on the same.
\nCurrent status etc. may, therefore, be obtained from the CVO,
\nBank of India.\n<\/p>\n
Para ‘B’
\nPoint (A): There is no difference between circular and office
\norder issued by the Commission and implications of both are the
\nsame.\n<\/p>\n
Point (B), (C) & (D): The circular\/s office order\/ manual issued
\nby the Commission is advisory in nature and all organizations
\nare expected to closely adhere to the instructions issued. These
\nare guidelines, which help in improving vigilance administration
\nin the Ministries\/ Departments\/ Organizations etc. The CVO is<\/p>\n
                               5<\/span>
\n        responsible for overall guidance to the management for ensuring
\n       effective vigilance administration.\n<\/p>\n
       Point (E): Information sought is not specific in nature. A
\n       complaint can, however, be lodged with the Commission by any
\n       citizen in case information of commission of any misconduct has
\n       come to notice in respect of any official of the Commission or
\n       CVO’s setup in any organization.\n<\/p>\n
       Point (F) & (G): The Commission has not entrusted the work of
\n       enforcement of its circular\/ guidelines to any outside agency.
\n       Commission monitors the work done by the CVO’s through
\n       prescribed returns and also through annual zonal review
\n       meetings.\n<\/p>\n
       Point (H): The Commission\/ orders are meant for
\n       implementation by the CVO’s in improving vigilance
\n       administration of the organizations concerned.
\n       Point (I): In case, any deviation\/ overruling of Commission’s
\n       guidelines are brought to the notice, the Commission itself
\n       decides further course of action in the matter.”\n<\/p>\n
       Nevertheless Ms. Kashalkar in her first appeal before Shri V.K. Gupta,
\nAddl. Secretary has pleaded that “the information should be provided point by
\npoint covering all specific points stated. Now when a specific case is referred
\nin this application only, where the response of the Commission is contrary to
\nwhat is stated by the CPIO thereby giving an impression that CVC needs
\noutside force to act upon its own Circulars.”\n<\/p>\n
       Upon this Shri V.K. Gupta in his order of 18-8-08 has decided as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
       “I find that the issues raised in the appeal as mentioned in para
\n       4 above, are all in the form of queries, questionnaire and
\n       clarifications and do not construe information as defined u\/s 2 (f)
\n       of RTI Act. Such nature of information as asked is neither held
\n       nor denied by the CPIO.           CIC in its decision in file no.
\n       CIC\/AT\/A\/2006\/00154 dated 3.11.2006 in the case of Shri R. K.
\n       Mirg v\/s Director & CPIO, MHA, Rehabilitation wing and JS
\n       (FFR) & Appellate Authority, MHA, has held that section 2 (f) of
\n       the RTI Act allow an appellant access to information ‘held’ by a
\n       public authority. Similarly, Rules and Acts are already in the
\n       public domain and freely accessible, could not be said to be
\n       ‘held’ by any public authority. Further, it is not open to the
\n       appellant to seek ‘interpretation’ of a law or rule from the public
\n       authority under the guise of information, as relevant under RTI
\n       Act. CIC I ncase4 No. CIC\/AT\/A\/2006\/00045 dated 21.4.2006
\n       on the appeal of Dr. D. V. Rao has clearly held that ‘it is not
\n       open to an appellant to ask, in the guise of seeking information,
\n       questions to the public authorities about the nature and quality<\/p>\n
                                        6<\/span>
\n        of their actions. The RTI Act does not cast on the public
\n       authority any obligation to answer queries, as in this case, in
\n       which a petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his questions with
\n       prefixes, such as, why, what, when and whether.                The
\n       petitioner’s right extends only to seeking information as defined
\n       in section 2 (f) either by pinpointing the file, document, paper or
\n       record, etc., or by mentioning by type of information as may be
\n       available with the specified public authority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       In view of above, the information provided\/ reply given by the
\n       CPIO is held to be in order.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Appellant’s prayer in her second appeal in this case is as below:
\n       “1)   The CPIO CVC be directed to provide the necessary
\n             information sought by me under part of the
\n             application mischievously and deliberately omitted
\n             by the AA.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2)           CPIO\/ AA CVC be penalized for deliberately and
\npurposefully providing false and misleading information.\n<\/p>\n
3)           Departmental action be initiated against CPIO and AA
\nfor providing false information.”\n<\/p>\n
       Both the appeals have been clubbed and were scheduled for hearing
\non 11-5-2010 with arrangement for videoconference with NIC studio,
\nBhandara. Both parties presented themselves at the respective venues but
\nthe matter could not be heard because of technical failure at NIC, Bhandara.
\nThis was, in fact, the second attempt as a similar hearing the day before had
\nbeen adjourned on the same grounds. However, both appeals were heard
\ntogether on 4th June 2010. The following are present:\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant (at NIC Studio, Bhandara)
\n       Shri P. D. Kashalkar
\n       Respondents
\n       Shri Vineet Mathur, Director & CPIO
\n       Shri J. Vinod Kumar, Under Secretary<\/p>\n
File No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/00359
\n       Shri Vinod Kumar, Under Secretary, CVC submitted that subsequent to
\nthe orders of Appellate Authority Shri V.K. Gupta the complete information
\nheld by the CVC on the issues agitating appellant Ms. Kanchan Kashalkar
\nhad been provided to her through letter of 24-7-2008, which Shri Kashalkar
\nconceded having received. He, however, reiterated that the information cited
\nin his prayer i.e. (A) of B, (B) of B, (C), (D) and (E) of B had not been received
\nby him. On this, respondent Shri Vinod Kumar submitted that the only piece<\/p>\n
                                        7<\/span>
\n of information that had not been given was (E) of B, which is held in fiduciary
\ncapacity and had been refused on the grounds of Bank of India having
\npleaded as much. In this case the letter of the Bank of India was also shown
\nto us in which the Bank had stated that disclosing this information would
\ncompromise the entire disciplinary procedures apart from invading the privacy
\nof the individuals concerned.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
File No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/00356
\n       In this case appellant Shri Kashalkar submitted that order of Appellate
\nAuthority was misplaced because CVC should be in possession of the
\ninformation that he has sought. As an example he cited question No. 10 of A
\nin which he had sought the tentative time when this case would attract the
\nvigilance angle.   The response of CPIO Shri Vinod Kumar had been as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
       “Complaint\/ representation sent in July 2006 was processed by
\n       the Commission in the case file of Shri P. D. Kashalkar as the
\n       matters were connected\/ closely related. Hence, the said
\n       complaint of the applicant does not constitute or include in the
\n       information on complaints received and disposed reflected in
\n       table 5 at page 27 of the Annual Report 2006.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       It was clarified by Shri Vinod Kumar in the hearing that this case had
\nbeen referred to the Bank of India and was, therefore, not registered as a
\ncomplaint received and disposed of by the CVC. Shri Kashalkar, however,
\nwas insistent to know the reason why the Bank of India had not been asked
\nabout the time of disposal since the matter was referred to them. In his view
\nsuch information should have been held by the CVC.\n<\/p>\n
                                DECISION NOTICE
\nFile No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/00359
\nWith regard to this file quite clearly Appellate Authority Shri V.K. Gupta has
\ndirected that all the information that is disclosable should be disclosed. CPIO
\nShri Vinod Kumar contends that this is what he has done.          The plea of
\nappellant Ms. Kanchan Kashalkar in this case is that the orders of the
\nAppellate Authority have not been fully complied with. It is the responsibility
\nof the First Appellate Authority, not of this Commission, to ensure that the<\/p>\n
                                       8<\/span>
\n orders passed by it are duly complied with by the CPIO. The Commission,
\ntherefore, has decided to remand the case back to the first Appellate
\nAuthority to ensure that its orders under section 19(1) are duly complied
\nwith and the requested information furnished in terms of the order so passed,
\nwith the qualification that now, in accordance with Sec 7(6) of the RTI Act,
\n2005, no fees will be charged for any further information provided.
\n.\n<\/p>\n
          If the compliance is not ensured within 15 days from the date of receipt
\nof this order, the appellate authority shall approach this Commission for
\ninitiation of proceedings under section 20 of the RTI Act for imposition of
\npenalty and\/or recommending appropriate disciplinary action. This will be
\nwithout prejudice to the right of the appellate authority to initiate other penal
\naction under the Indian Penal Code against the PIO if he has found wilful
\nviolation of lawful orders promulgated by a public servant while exercising
\nstatutory powers. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
File No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/00356
\n          In appeal No. 356 on the other hand we find that point wise information
\nhas indeed been given to appellant Ms. Kashalkar as asked for. Shri
\nKashalkar has been unable to establish before this Commission that there still
\nremains some information that is held by the CVC which has not been
\nprovided to him. His arguments have instead been based on recrimination for
\nthe manner of functioning of the CVC.\n<\/p>\n
          An important question that arises in this context is as to whether what
\nthe appellant is asking can be treated as an “information” within the meaning
\nof Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which appellate authority
\nhas decided that it does not. The term “information” as defined by Section 2(f)
\nincludes “any material in any form including records, documents, memos, e-
\nmails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks,
\ncontracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any
\nelectronic form and information relating to any private body which can be
\naccessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in
\nforce.”\n<\/p>\n
                                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
        In order to understand the essence of the Act, it is important to read
\nSection 2(f) along with Sections 2(i) and 2(j). Section 2(j) reads as under: –\n<\/p>\n
      ” ‘right to information’ means the right to information accessible
\n      under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public
\n      authority and includes the right to –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (i)     inspection of work, documents, records;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(ii)          taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or
\nrecords;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)         taking certified samples of material;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)  obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes,
\nvideo cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts
\nwhere such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.”\n<\/p>\n
       To be read with this is Section 2(i), which reads as under:-
\n       “records” includes –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              “(a) any document, manuscript and file;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a
\n              document;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in
\n              such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (d)any other material produced by a computer or any
\n              other device.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       From the above, it is clear that the Right to Information Act confers on
\na citizen only access to such information that is held by or is under the control
\nof a Public Authority. Section 2(f), on the other hand, defines “information” as
\nsomething which is available in a material form. “Information”, therefore, can
\nbe something that is available in a material form and is retrievable from the
\nofficial records. It cannot be something that is not a part of the record. An
\n“opinion” or an “advice” which is not recorded cannot, therefore, be treated as
\n“information” within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Similarly, the
\nCPIO cannot either confirm or deny some perception of the appellant, which
\nhe has about a particular set of information. The role of the CPIO under the
\nRight to Information Act, 2005 is of information provider and he cannot be
\ntreated as a creator of the information. If a matter has been decided, he can
\ncommunicate the decision, but if the matter is still to be decided, he cannot
\nprovide a decision. Similarly, he also cannot either justify a decision already
\ntaken or provide reasons for such decision.         That is clearly outside the<\/p>\n
                                       10<\/span>
\n purview of the CPIO under the RTI Act. Under these circumstances this
\nappeal is without substance and is hereby dismissed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
\nto the parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n4-6-2010<\/p>\n
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n4-6-2010<\/p>\n
                                      11<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Ms.Kanchan P Kashalkar vs Central Vigilance Comission on 4 June, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000359 & 356 dated 25-3-2009 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant: Ms. Kanchan P. Kashalkar Respondent: Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Decision announced : 4.6.2010 FACTS These are two appeals from Ms. Kanchan P. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43933","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMs.Kanchan P Kashalkar vs Central Vigilance Comission on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ms.Kanchan P Kashalkar vs Central Vigilance Comission on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-21T21:04:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ms.Kanchan P Kashalkar vs Central Vigilance Comission on 4 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-21T21:04:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3728,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Ms.Kanchan P Kashalkar vs Central Vigilance Comission on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-21T21:04:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ms.Kanchan P Kashalkar vs Central Vigilance Comission on 4 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ms.Kanchan P Kashalkar vs Central Vigilance Comission on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ms.Kanchan P Kashalkar vs Central Vigilance Comission on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-21T21:04:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ms.Kanchan P Kashalkar vs Central Vigilance Comission on 4 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-21T21:04:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010"},"wordCount":3728,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010","name":"Ms.Kanchan P Kashalkar vs Central Vigilance Comission on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-21T21:04:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-kanchan-p-kashalkar-vs-central-vigilance-comission-on-4-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ms.Kanchan P Kashalkar vs Central Vigilance Comission on 4 June, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43933","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43933"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43933\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43933"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43933"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43933"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}