Neeraj Kumar Gupta DECISION
Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Information Commissioner
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, M G Marg, Kanpur, UP. seeking information on six points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) Details of show-cause notice issued to the complainant on 12.02.2016;
(ii) Under which rule termination order was issued to the complainant on 29.04.2016, etc.
2. Being aggrieved with the response given by the respondent, the complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Ms. Samita Gupta, Secretary attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 19.10.2020 and 31.10.2020 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The complainant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 26.09.2018.
6. The respondent reiterated the reply given by the CPIO and FAA and submitted that point-wise reply/information as per the documents available on record has been provided to the complainant within stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that some queries of the complainant are in the nature of seeking explanation/opinion/advice from the CPIO and he has expected that the CPIO firstly should analyze the documents and then provide information to the complainant. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
8. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in MANU/SC/0932/2011 : 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advic........