Applicant fails to get clarification regarding ‘VIPs’

Appellant had sought information as to which officials are considered as VIPs. PIO stated that he was not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve problems raised by the appellant or to furnish replies to situational queries or to furnish clarification.
CIC upheld the stand of the PIO and has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) dated 09.08.2011 and of the Delhi High Court dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011] wherein it is held that in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to solve problems raised by the appellant; or to furnish replies to situational queries; or to furnish clarifications; that the CPIO only provides information available with him or held by him and that where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant; that the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it and there is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant.
Gejesh George vs. CPIO, M/O. Railways, Railway Board
No. CIC/MORLY/A/2018/140232 DD 05-03-2020

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *