CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Block No. IV, 5th Floor, Old JNU Campus

New Delhi-110067

[ Right to Information Section 19(1) ]

No. CIC/AA/A/2006/00029 Dated: August 03, 2007

Name of the Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta,

38, SFS Flat, DDA,
Mukherjee Nagar,
Delhi-110009.

Date of hearing : 07th June, 2007

The appeal was heard on 7th June, 2007. The appellant was also allowed to file
arguments in writing, which were received on 4th July, 2007.

Facts of the case

2. The appellant vide his application dated 15.03.2007 asked for certain information
from the CPIO of the Commission pertaining to Appeal Case No.
CIC/AT/A/2006/00586. The CPIO furnished the information vide his letter dated
12.04.2007. The reply furnished by the CPIO was found to be unsatisfactory by the
appellant and hence the appeal.

3. In Point No. 2 of his RTI application, the applicant wanted to have the
information concerning Appeal Case No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00332 and review dated
22.12.2006. The CPIO has advised the applicant to file a fresh RTI request. The appellant
has submitted that this was a denial of information by the CPIO.

4. Through Point 3, the applicant wanted to know about a complaint case sent by
him on 13.3.2007. The CPIO has informed that no such case has so far been registered as
stated by the applicant as per the data base of the Commission.

5. In Point No.4 of his RTI application, the applicant wanted to know the purpose
for asking four copies to be submitted by the applicant and raised certain procedural
issues concerning this practice. The CPIO instead of replying to the questions raised
advised the applicant to file a fresh RTI application. In the appeal petition, the applicant
did not mention anything about Point Nos. 3 & 4, but has objected only in regard to Point

1
Nos. 1 & 2. In respect of Point No.1, he has stated that the reply furnished by the CPIO is
unsatisfactory and in regard to Point No.2, his submission is that no reply was furnished.

6. At the time of hearing, the applicant has submitted that RTI Act does not restrict
the number of queries that can be raised in one single RTI application. He even went to
the extent of submitting that an applicant can seek information concerning all the cases
through one RTI application. In this connection, he submitted that in Sarabjit Roy Vs.
DDA, the Commission has allowed the applicant to have almost six lakh pages free of
cost from different files of DDA in one single case. He also submitted that although the
case numbers are different, but the issues raised by him in the RTI application are the
same. At the time of hearing, he also raised Point No.4 which was not mentioned in his
appeal petition and submitted that the matters raised therein pertain to pro-active
disclosure by the public authority under Section 4(1)(d) and as such this information must
be made available to every citizen by the Commission without waiting for any
application under the RTI Act

Issues for decision

(i) How many number of queries/information an applicant can ask for under
one RTI application ?
(ii) Can there be an RTI application in respect of matter covered under Section
4(1)(d) ?
(iii) What orders, if any, may be passed in this particular appeal case ?

Decision and its reasons

7. Right to Information has been defined in Section 2(j) of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 which reads as under :-

right to information means the right to information accessible under this Act
which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the
right to

(i) inspection of work, documents, records;

(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video
cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such
information is stored in a computer or in any other device;

8. Prime facie, therefore, the right to information is not about seeking answers or
asking questions. It is more about inspection of documents or records or taking notes,
extracts or certified copies of the documents/records. In regard to information which is
in an electronic form, information can be sought in any electronic form, such as,
diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes etc.

2
9. Although the definition of the right to information is an inclusive one but still it
has to be an information available and existing. It must also be either held by or under the
control of the concerned public authority. A non est information is no information.
Similarly, in the name of seeking an information, one cannot demand what is not there on
the record.

10. If Section 2(j) is read with Section 2(f) which defines the word information
itself, it will be very clear that the information has to be in some material form. I find that
the response given by the CPIO in respect of Appeal Case No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00586 is
exactly what was available on the record. He cannot be expected to create something
what is not there.

11. The argument of the appellant that if the reasons were not available in the order,
he should have taken assistance of the Information Commissioner under Section 5(4) and
5(5) of the RTI Act, is an argument which is just not tenable. In this connection, it is
worthwhile to point out that the Central Information Commission is a quasi judicial body
but all proceedings before it are judicial. Every judicial authority decides a matter on the
basis of materials available on record and on the basis of what has been presented before
it in the course of hearing. Once the decision is given or the matter has been adjudicated
what is left is only the decision and whatever is there in the decision. The CPIO cannot
analyze and illicit reasons from the decision and tell the applicant as to why a particular
decision was taken by an authority acting in a judicial proceeding. Even the authority that
decides the matter cannot also probably tell as to how and why it took a certain decision.
It is the decision or the order that speaks for itself. The authority or the presiding officer
is not expected to justify or elaborate once the decision is pronounced.

12. I find that the copy of the decision was already available with the applicant and
the CPIO has again enclosed a copy thereof. The questions raised by the applicant and the
answers demanded by him are clearly outside the realm of RTI.

13. I, therefore, find no merit in the contentions of the applicant. The issue is decided
accordingly.

Whether the information furnished by the CPIO in respect of Appeal No.

CIC/AT/A/2006/00586 is unsatisfactory ?

14. In so far as the second issue is concerned, the CPIO has advised the applicant to
file a fresh RTI application and the applicant has submitted that there is no limit to the
number of queries raised or information demanded under one RTI application. For the
time being and in so far as this appeal is concerned, I find that the applicant wanted
information about one another appeal petition. I feel that the CPIO instead of raising a
technical issue should have probably provided the information. I, therefore, direct the
CPIO to provide the information held by the Commission concerning Appeal case No.
CIC/MA/A/2006/00332.

3
11. Through Point No.4, the applicant is seeking justification of the procedure for
filing of appeal/complaint in the Central Information Commission. As observed above,
this cannot be treated as an information per se and the applicant cannot demand and the
CPIO cannot explain the justification or otherwise of a provision or a practice followed in
connection with a judicial proceeding by a quasi judicial authority.

12. With these observations, the appeal petition is disposed of. The appellant may,
however, file a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission against this
order if deemed fit or so advised.

Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2007

( L.C. Singhi)
Appellate Authority
Central Information Commission

Copy forwarded to:-

1. Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, 38, SFS Flats, DDA, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-
110009.

2. CPIO, CIC, New Delhi.

3. Mr. Paul, Arokianathan S., Scientist-C, NIC with a request to place it on

the web site.