When information not held by the PIO

Applicant had sought information on “whether an individual against whom no FIR had been lodged could be held accountable for disturbance of peace on the basis of a surety bond signed by him, etc.
PIO submitted that the queries raised were interpretative /clarificatory in nature which was beyond the purview of S.2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
CIC after referring to the definitions of “information” u/s 2(f) and “right to information” u/s 2(j) of the RTI Act, the decisions of the Supreme Court in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), and in SLP (Civil) No.34868 of 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) ‘Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer), agreed with the stand of the PIO as the Supreme Court in the above decisions has held that the PIO not supposed to have any material which is not before him, or any information he could have obtained under law; that under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the “public authority” under any other law for the time being in force; that the answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information
Mr. Aftab Alam vs CPIO & Registrar (Accountants) High Court of Allahabad
No.:- CIC/HCOST/A/2018/149697-BJ DD 4-3-2020

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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