Central Information CommissionAshwani Kumar Avasthi vs High Court Of Other States on 10 April, 2020केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग\n                             Central Information Commission\n                                   बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका\n                              Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                                नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067\n\nद्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/HCOST/A/2019/639217-BJ\n\nMr. Ashwani Kumar Avasthi\n                                                                         ....अपीलकताग/Appellant\n                                           VERSUS\n                                              बनाम\nCPIO\nRegistrar (A/c) In-Charge\nAllahabad High Court\nAllahabad - 211017\n                                                                     ...प्रनतिािीगण /Respondent\nDate of Hearing       :                     24.03.2020\nDate of Decision      :                     10.04.2020\n\nDate of RTI application                                                     01.09.2018\nCPIO's response                                                             01.11.2018\nDate of the First Appeal                                                    10.02.2019\nFirst Appellate Authority's response                                        Not on Record\nDate of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission                        Nil\n\n                                          ORDERFACTS:The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the certified copies of file\nnoting and daily progress report of action taken on the applications dated 07.05.2017 and\n31.07.2017 submitted by him before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court.The CPIO, vide its letter dated 01.11.2018, stated that the grievance raised by the Applicant had\nbeen placed before the Hon'ble Recruitment Committee in its meeting dated 04.10.2018. The\nHon'ble Committee had considered the grievance and rejected the same. Furthermore, the\ncertified copies of the file noting and daily progress report of action taken on the applications\ncould not be provided in the light of Order XL, Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules,\n1952. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The Order of\nthe FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.HEARING:Facts emerging during the hearing:The following were present:Appellant: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Avasthi through TC;Respondent: Absent;Page 1 of 3In view of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country, the Appellant was heard on phone who\ninformed that the information sought had been received by him.The Commission referred to the definition of informationu/s 2(f)of the RTI Act, 2005 which is\nreproduced below:"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-\n       mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report,\n       papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information\n       relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other\n       law for the time being in force."Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract ofSection 2 (j)of the RTI Act,\n2005 which reads as under:"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which\n       is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC\n497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor\n       required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to\n       'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' insection 2(f)of the Act, only\n       refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public\n       authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to\n       the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation\n       under theRTI Act."Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative\nOfficer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010)\nhad held as under:6. "....Under the RTI Act"information" is defined underSection 2(f)which provides:"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-\n       mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report,\n       papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information\n       relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other\n       law for the time being in force."This definition shows that an applicant underSection 6of the RTI Act can get any\n       information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under\n       law. Of course, under theRTI Actan applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions,\n       advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such\n       opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not\n       before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. UnderSection 6of\n       the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed\n       by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answersPage 2 of 3sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority\n       nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged\n       to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was\n       before him."DECISION:Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant and the replies\navailable on record, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.(Bimal Julka) (बबमल जुल्का)\n                                     (Chief Information Commissioner) (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त)\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अभिप्रमाणणत सत्यावपत प्रनत)\n\n\n\n\n(K.L. Das) (के.एल.िास)\n(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)\n011-26186535/[email protected]दिनांक / Date: 10.04.2020Page 3 of 3