ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Sun, Dec 08, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Definition of Information
Supreme Court(Definition of Information)/ High Courts(Definition of Information)
31 CIC/SS/C/2014/900112
(312.82 KB) pdf icon
25 Jul, 2016 Vansh Sharad Gupta vs High Court of Gujarat

Section 2(f) Information Appropriate Commission

The Commission held that in its earlier decision bearing No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01137 dated 13th March, 2009 titled as Shri DN. Loharuka v High Court of Judicature at Mumbai, has held that "The constitution and organization of the High Courts is within the legislative ambit of the Parliament under Entry 78 to the Schedule VII of the Constitution. Article 231 of the Constitution provides that the Parliament may by law establish a common High Court for two or more states or two or more states and Union Territories.

Thus, all the High Courts as Public Authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005 will come within the jurisdiction of the Central Information Commission and not State Information Commission."
32 CIC/MP/A/2016/000081
(405.21 KB) pdf icon
29 Jun, 2016 K C. Jalgaonkar vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai

Section 2(f) Information

The Commission held that the respondent authority has placed disclosable information on their website which is available in public domain and therefore not under the control of the public authority. It can be accessed by anybody desiring to seek this information. Therefore, there is no need to provide a hard copy. The Commission upheld the decisions of the FAA.
33 CIC/KY/A/2014/00066/SB
(347.66 KB) pdf icon
10 Jun, 2016 V. Stanley Paulus vs Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi

Section 2(f) Information. The Commission held that the respondent has mentioned in his reply that the information sought is readily available on the website of the Department. Hence, the CPIO is directed to provide the link of the website, from where the information can be obtained, to the appellant.
34 CIC/BS/A/2015/000661/10353
(64.17 KB) pdf icon
18 May, 2016 Tapan N Patel Vs. EPFO, Ahmedabad

Section 2(f) — Information

The Commission held that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
35 CIC/MP/A/2016/000452
(87.52 KB) pdf icon
29 Apr, 2016 S. Venkatachalam vs State Bank of Hyderabad

Section 2(f) Information

The appellant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH), Nizamabad seeking information in respect of discretionary powers available to the Disciplinary Authority.

The Commission held that the information sought by the appellant did not fall within the definition of 'information' as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision off the CPIO.
36 CIC/MP/A/2015/001937
(105.40 KB) pdf icon
16 Apr, 2016 Desh Raj Dhiman vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Shimla

Section 2(f) Information

The Commission held that the queries made by the appellant in his RTI application were more in nature of seeking clarification and explanation of the respondents rather than information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
37 CIC/MP/A/2013/000061/SH
(206.52 KB) pdf icon
15 Jan, 2015 Om Prakash Gupta Vs. CPIO, UCO Bank

The query was the basis of giving loan to the brother of appellant.

CIC held that RTI application seeking explanation from the bank does not fall in the ambit of information as defined under Section 2 (f) of the Act.
38 CIC/SS/A/2013/000383
(320.72 KB) pdf icon
17 Oct, 2013 Shankarsan Dash vs Ministry of Home Affairs

The appellant through his RTI application sought certain information (like had the request been put up to the authority
addressed to for approval; copies of all the office noting/correspondence of the file etc.) regarding the action taken on his representation, which he had submitted to the Union Home Secretary about non-availability of post of IGP in Arunachal Pradesh - the CPIO informed the appellant that his queries are not covered under the RTI Act.
The Commission held that all that the Appellant wanted to know by way of his instant RTI application was the action taken on his representations submitted to the Union Home Secretary, and copies of file noting/correspondence relating to the same. This information is very much specific and well within the scope of the definition of information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act J as well as under the definition of "right to information" as defined in section 2(j) of the RTI Act. The information sought by the Appellant in his instant RTI application full meets the requirements of 'information means any material in any form' and information which is held or under the control of public authority/. Thus, the reasons of the then CPIO, as endorsed but the Appellate Authority is incorrect and in contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act.
39 CIC/SM/C/2011/001542 CIC/SM/C/2012/000609 CIC/SM/C/2011/001322
(80.00 KB) pdf icon
10 Dec, 2012 Shri Subhash Chander Agrawal, Shri Ajitabh Sinha & Shri Mani Ram Sharma vs Attorney General for India

Full Bench of the Commission consisting of Shri Satyananda Mishra, Chief Information Commissioner; Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner and Shri M.L. Sharma, Information Commissioner. Appellant Subhash Chandra Agrawal is present in person. Shri Ajitabh Sinha is represented by Shri Dheeraj. However, Shri Mani Ram Sharma is not present before the Commission.
The office of Attorney General is sui generis. He is a standalone counsel of the Govt. of India. He renders legal advice to the Govt. of India which is not binding in nature. He is not a public authority u/s 2 (h) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the complaints referred to hereinabove have no merit and are dismissed.
40 CIC/SS/A/2012/001612
(194.99 KB) pdf icon
25 Sep, 2012 Shri G.C. Sharma vs Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Official Language

The respondent are not expected under the RTI Act to provide any interpretation on the information provided. The respondent can only provide information as per record held by them. Section 2 (f)
41 CIC/AD/A/2012/001592
(205.21 KB) pdf icon
21 Aug, 2012 Ashwani Kumar Vs. Northern Railway, New Delhi

Section 2(f) – Information –
The Appellant’s RTI query was “how many proofs, you need to dismiss from service for cheating with his own organization &
government of India, ……..?”

The Commission held that the Respondent have rightly informed the appellant that his query does not qualify to be request for information as given section 2(f) of the RTI act, since, it does not identify any material information. It is more in nature of soliciting the opinion, advice of the public authority which is not available in their record.
42 CIC/SS/A/2012/000809
(232.83 KB) pdf icon
14 Aug, 2012 P.P. Rajeev Vs. Cochin Port Trust

Section 2(f) – information – Section 2(j) – RTI
The CPIO replied to that the appellant has not asked for information inspection of work, documents, record as provided u/s/2(j) of the RTI Act. HE has expressed his desire to supervise and monitor the activities of legal cell of cochin Port Trust which is not envisaged under the RTI Act – the FAA has upheld the decision of the CPIO
The Commission held that three is no reason to interfere in the order of the FAA which is upheld.
43 CIC/SM/A/2011/002367
(205.07 KB) pdf icon
09 Aug, 2012 Chandrashekhar Agarwal Vs. Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

Section 2(f) – information – the Appellant had raised some 16 queries seeking a variety of legal opinions –
The Commission held that after carefully going through all the 16 queries, we noted that not one of them would amount to information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is useful to bear in mind that information refers to any material record or document which already exists. It does not refer to the opinion or the views of the CPIO or any other officer within the public authority on any subject.
44 CIC/LS/A/2011/001277/BS/0592
(106.25 KB) pdf icon
08 Aug, 2012 Edison Isaac T. Vs. D/o Posts, Thiruvananthapuram

Section 2(f) – Information
The Commission held that in the three queries the appellant had asked the reasons for not giving the allowance, whether certain points were considered while reviewing cases and the reasons for exemptions of mail conveyance. The PIO under the RTI Act can only provide the information/documents as available and existing on record.
45 CIC/LS/A/2011/002861/BS/0571
(60.76 KB) pdf icon
02 Aug, 2012 S. Mahajan Vs. MTNL, New Delhi

Section 2(f) – Information
Appellant has mentioned 5 points regarding the information in respect of the given contracts i.e. Agreement. The appellant seeks information as the definition of the term “Expected Matters”, list of the matters which fall under this; list of matters ‘Expressly’ kept out of the arbitration clause. ; whether all the decisions/opinions of MTNL Officers are to be treated as being out of the purview of the arbitration clause no.53 and if yes then CE(BW) concerned has to inform the provisions existing in these contracts.
The Commission held that under the RTI Act the PIO can only provide the information / documents as available and existing on record. The Commission directed the PIO to examine the records and provide documents, if any, which give interpretations is/are available a declaration to the effect should be furnished to the appellant.
Total Case uploaded: 72