Applicant had sought information regarding the reasons on the basis of which award was given to Mr. Satish despite causing loss to the company with respect to maintenance of spare parts. The same was not considered.
CIC agreed with the PIO observing that the appellant had not sought any specific documents and therefore, the CPIO cannot be expected to analyse and interpret the documents/rules for creating the information in the manner sought by the appellant. CIC relied upon the decision dated 07-01-2016 of the Delhi High Court in LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015 titled as The Registrar of Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K Batra &Ors., wherein, it was held as under:- “15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, “right to information” under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which it is sought by the applicant.”
7. The CPIO is also not obliged to provide reasons to the appellant on the basis of which award was given to Mr. Satish Kumar Singh. This sort of queries seeking clarification from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of ‘information’ u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005”.
S.A. No. CIC/NCFLT/A/2018/129426 DD 16-3-2020
L. K. Choubey vs. CPIO, Northern Coalfields Limited,