ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Mon, Dec 11, 2023
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Definition of Information
Supreme Court(Definition of Information)/ High Courts(Definition of Information)
46 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)
47 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.
48 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.
49 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.
50 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.
51 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.
52 CIC/DS/A/2011/001126/RM
(77.80 KB) pdf icon
11 Jul, 2012 Mr. Yatinder Babu Sharma, Mathura vs Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh

The CPIO informed the appellant that the information sought by him was neither maintained nor available in the desired format. The appellant submitted that he wanted the information in the format which he has provided. Section 7(9) of the RTI Act states that an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. The stand taken by the CPIO as well as by Appellant Authority is upheld. Section 2(f)
53 CIC/LS/A/2011/002479
(37.92 KB) pdf icon
10 Jul, 2012 Shri K.A. Phani Kumar vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

The Appellant sent a number of communications to BPCL authorities regarding non-supply of free air at M/s Ramnath Subhash Chander Service Station, Jabalpur – the appellant was aggrieved with the fact that the complaints sent by him were not attended to by the concerned officers of BPCL. CIC directed that, his grievance may be promptly attended by the authorities. Section 2(f)
54 CIC/SS/A/2012/000300
(371.59 KB) pdf icon
06 Jul, 2012 R.K. Jain v Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi

Section 2(f) — Information
Whether the inquiry report which was found unsatisfactory by the president CESTAT constitute information
The Commission held that such Inquiry Report, which was found unsatisfactory by the president, CESTAT, is no longer valid or does not exist in the eyes of law will be incorrect, in as much as the said Report forms part of the official records maintained by CESTAT and therefore, constitutes "information" as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act. So long as the president, CESTAT has finalized his view on the Inquiry Report sought by the Complainant after due consideration, the said Inquiry Report has to be made available to the Complainant.
55 CIC/LS/A/2011/001558
(27.17 KB) pdf icon
05 Jul, 2012 Shri Subodh Swami vs IOCL, Bhopal

The appellant had sought a copy of the note of the Board of Directors vide which medical scheme for retired employees was introduced – the CPIO had refused to disclose this information on the ground that this document was not a public document under the Companies Act 1956. Both on legal and practical considerations, the decision of the CPIO & AA is set aside by CIC.
56 CIC/SS/A/2012/000244
(192.08 KB) pdf icon
29 Jun, 2012 Shri Anil Kumar vs Ministry of Law & Justice, Legislative Department

The appellant had filed an application in which he sought certified copies of 120 Central Acts, which are stored in the website of Law Ministry – Copy of a BPL certificate was attached to the petition – the CPIO informed the appellant that all Central Acts are available in the public domain. The Commission held that the appellant had sought certified copies of 120 Central Acts, which are already available in the public domain. The respondent have no disclosure obligation to provide certified copies of such Acts which are already available on the website of Ministry of Law & Justice.
57 CIC/AT/A/2010/000752/SS
(206.89 KB) pdf icon
27 Jun, 2012 Shri Somnath R. Agawane vs Mumbai Port Trust

The CPIO informed the appellant that the information sought by him did not fall within the ambit of ‘information’ as defined under the RTI Act - the Commission upheld the Order of CPIO. Section 2(f)
58 CIC/AD/A/2012/000795
(414.61 KB) pdf icon
18 Jun, 2012 Shiv Kumar Saxena Vs. Department of Women and Child Development, New Delhi

Section 2(f) — Information -
Whether the applicant have the right to get translated copy of documents sought in the RTI application — the Commission held that, since there is no provision for translating documents and then providing them to the Applicant under the RTI Act, as such information cannot be called ‘information' as per its definition in section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
59 CIC/LS/A/2011/003355
(27.84 KB) pdf icon
29 May, 2012 Sulagn Saha v PCDA (P), Allahabad

Section 2(f) — Information —
The Commission held that the appellant has raised frivolous issues in the RTI application- These issues can better be sorted out at the local level. It is open to him to visit the concerned office and seek the requisite information. Appeal dismissed.
60 CIC/DS/A/2011/001782/RM
(76.58 KB) pdf icon
25 May, 2012 Divesh Kumar Bhagwat Vs. University of Delhi

Section 2(f) — Information — the appellant sought the following information:
i. Reasons for increase in the re-evaluation fee and supplementary exam fee by Delhi University.
ii. Why does it take three months for re-evaluation and related issues
The CPIO responded and informed the appellant that the queries raised by him is not information as per section 2(f) of the RTl Act — the Commission upheld the stand of the CPIO and Appellate Authority.
Total Case uploaded: 78