Central Information CommissionDharmesh Vankar vs Ministry Of Women & Child Development on 7 January, 2022Author:Saroj PunhaniBench:Saroj Punhaniके ीय सूचना आयोग\n                        Central Information Commission\n                            बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका\n                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067\n\nFile No : CIC/MOWCD/A/2020/676614\n\nDharmesh Vankar                                    ......अपीलकता/Appellant\n\n                                      VERSUS\n                                       बनाम\n\n\nCPIO,\nM/o Women & Child\nDevelopment, (Women Welfare\nSection), RTI Cell, A-wing, Room No.632,\nShastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.                .... ितवादीगण /Respondent\n\n\nDate of Hearing                   :   05/01/2022\nDate of Decision                  :   05/01/2022\n\nINFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani\n\nRelevant facts emerging from appeal:\n\nRTI application filed on          :   15/06/2020\nCPIO replied on                   :   17/06/2020\nFirst appeal filed on             :   22/06/2020\nFirst Appellate Authority order   :   03/07/2020\n2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   04/07/2020\n\n\n\n\n                                           1\n Information sought:The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.06.2020 seeking information as\nunder;1. What action we can take if Judicial Magistrate First Class has changed\n      the earlier declared court date without consultation of respondent if yes,\n      please share whole procedure2. If Judicial Magistrate First Class has passed the order without considering\n      the law point which is already raised before him, what action we can take\n      against him if yes, please share whole procedure.3. if Protection Officer under The Protection of women from Domestic\n      Violence Act, 2005 has not made any inquiry or investigation while\n      preparing Domestic Incident Report, what action we can take against him4. if Protection Officer under The Protection of women from Domestic\n      Violence Act, 2005 has not made any inquiry or investigation while\n      preparing Domestic Incident Report and he has accepted that DIR is one\n      sided and prepared without investigation, what action we can take against\n      him5. What are the duties of Protection Officer under The Protection of women\n      fromDomestic Violence Act, 2005while preparing Domestic Incident Report6. To whom the Protection Officer under The Protection of women fromDomestic Violence Act, 2005has to report7. Does Judicial Magistrate First Class has the authority to change declared\n      court date without consultation and approval of respondent\n\n\nThe CPIO furnished point wise reply to the appellant on 17.06.2020 stating as\nfollows:-Points No. 1 to 4 & 7:- Information sought cannot be provided as persection 2(f)of the RTI Act, 2005.Points No. 5 & 6:- In this regard, it may be stated that since the\n      implementation of theDomestic Violence Act, 2005comes within the\n      purview of the State Government. It is, therefore, requested that the\n      concerned State Government may be approached for information.\n      However,Section 9of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence\n      Act, 2005 states that:-2"9. Duties and functions of Protection Officers-(1) It shall be the duty of the\n      Protection Officer-(a) To assist the Magistrate in the discharge of his functions under this Act;(b) to make a domestic incident report in the Magistrate, in such form and\n      in such manner as may he prescribed, upon receipt of a complaint of\n      domestic violence and forward copies thereof to the police officer in charge\n      of the polices station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction domestic\n      violence is alleged to have been committed and to the service providers in\n      that area.(c) to make an application in such form and in such manner as may be\n      prescribed to the Magistrate, if the aggrieved person so desires, claiming\n      relief for issuance of a protection order:(d) to ensure that the aggrieved person is provided legal aid under theLegal\n      Services Authorities Act, 1987(39 of 1987) and make available free of cost\n      the prescribed form in which a complaint is to be made:(e) to maintain a list of all service providers providing legal aid or\n      counseling, shelter homes and medical facilities in a local area within the\n      jurisdiction of the Magistrate;(f) to make available a safe shelter home, if the aggrieved person so\n      requires and forward a Copy of his report of having lodged the aggrieved\n      person in a shelter home to the police station and the Magistrate having\n      jurisdiction in the area where the shelter home is situated;(g) to get the aggrieved proton medically examined, if she has sustained\n      bodily injuries and forward a copy of the medical report to the police station\n      and the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the area where the domestic\n      violence is alleged to have been taken place;(h) to ensure that the order for monetary relief undersection 20is complied\n      with and executed, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);(i) to perform such other duties as may be prescribed.2. the Protection Officer shall be under the control and supervision of the\n      Magistrate, and shall perform the duties imposed on him by the Magistrate\n      and the Government by, or under, this Act."Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.06.2020. FAA's order\ndated 03.07.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.3Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with\nthe instant Second Appeal.Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:The following were present:-Appellant: Not present. (Remained unavailable for audio-conference hearing\ndespite receipt of prior intimation in this regard from the Registry attached with\nthis bench.)\nRespondent: Mirtyunjay Kumar, U.S. & CPIO present through audio-conference.The CPIO submitted that timely response along with relevant inputs has already\nbeen provided to the Appellant.Decision:The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action\nin the matter with respect to the information that has been sought for in the RTI\nApplication as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon as the queries raised\nby the Appellant do not conform toSection 2(f)of the RTI Act. The Appellant has\nsought for clarifications and deductions to be provided based on a speculative\nquery, yet the CPIO has provided the relevant explanation to the Appellant in the\nspirit ofRTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation ofSection 2(f)of\nthe RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is\nunwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they\nprovide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal\nprovisions under theRTI Act.In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt on the scope and ambit ofSection 2(f)of RTI Act in the matter ofCBSE vs.\nAditya Bandopadhyay & Ors[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was\nheld as under:"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about\n   theRTI Act.The RTI Actprovides access to all information that is available\n   and existing. This is clear from a combined reading ofsection 3and the4definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f)\n   and (j) ofsection 2of the Act. If a public authority has any information in\n   the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant\n   may access such information, subject to the exemptions insection 8of\n   the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a\n   public authority, and where such information is not required to be\n   maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public\n   authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority,\n   to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to\n   an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish\n   information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of\n   assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an\n   applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to\n   an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of\n   `information' insection 2(f)of the Act, only refers to such material\n   available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities\n   have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion\n   to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused\n   with any obligation under theRTI Act." Emphasis Supplied\n\nIn view of the foregoing observations, no further relief is pertinent in the\nmatter.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन)\n                                          Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु )\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)\n\n(C.A. Joseph)\nDy. Registrar\n011-26179548/[email protected]सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक\n दनांक /5