ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Mon, Feb 06, 2023
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Definition of Information
Supreme Court(Definition of Information)/ High Courts(Definition of Information)
61 CIC/SM/A/2011/001564
(206.84 KB) pdf icon
25 May, 2012 D K Bhaumik Vs. CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi

Section 2(f) — Information
The appellant raised a number of queries relating to the interpretation of various provisions of the RTI Act
Commission held that what the Appellant had sought was clearly beyond the scope of the responsibility cast on the CPIO under the RTI Act. The provisions of the RTI Act are as much available to the Appellant as to the CPIO. How should these provisions be interpreted is not to be suggested by the CPIO. The courts of law and Information Commissions interpret the provisions of the law as and when such issues are raised before them. Therefore, obviously, the CPIO could not have provided any specific information in this regard.
62 CIC/SG/A/2011/002158/SG/18597
(50.58 KB) pdf icon
25 Apr, 2012 Mr. Shyam Sunder Singh vs CPIO & Dy. Secretary Central Information Commission

The Appellant sought information about certain records with the insistent that it should be translated in Hindi and should be provided. The Commission held that the PIO is not expected to translate any record and send such translated version as per the RTI Act. Section 6(1)
63 CIC/WB/C/2010/000056-SM
(206.66 KB) pdf icon
09 Apr, 2012 Shri Pratham Kumar vs CPIO, Allahabad High Court, Allahabad

The Appellant referred an application not under the RTI Act but under the rules and procedures of the High Court seeking to know if the stay order granted by the Allahabad High Court in a particular matter was still in force or not- the CPIO had not acted on this application because it was not made under the provisions of the RTI Act Section 2(j)
64 CIC/SS/A/2011/001885
(195.83 KB) pdf icon
04 Apr, 2012 Shri P.B. Unnikrishnan Nair vs The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd

The appellant had filed an application seeking copy of the report on integration of UD and PD- issues relating to interse- seniority in Managerial Technical Cadre. The CPIO informed the appellant that the matter is being examined by the management and it has not been accepted by the Company till date- since the report is not accepted by the Company; it is not an official document of the company, therefore the report is not ‘information’ under section 2(f) of the RTI Act- the Commission held that it is of the view that the information sought for by the appellant does not fall within the meaning of ‘information’ as contained u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act as the said report is subject to various changes based on the discussions with the Unions.
65 CIC/SS/A/2011/002078
(207.95 KB) pdf icon
02 Apr, 2012 Ms. A. Nazira Begum vs Central Tobacco Research Institute, Rajahmundry

The appellant had filed an application seeking information. The Commission held that if the citizen chooses not to exercise his right under this law but seeks the information under any other law or rules, the CPIO cannot be compelled to respond to such a request. In the present case, the application has been made not under the RTI Act, therefore, the CPIO cannot be held responsible for not responding to that application at all.
66 CIC/SS/A/2011/001946
(193.85 KB) pdf icon
23 Mar, 2012 Vipin Prakash Vs. Airports Authority of India

Section 2(f) – Information
The Commission held that the appellant has grievances regarding the pay scale. The RTI is not the forum for redressal of grievances. The appellant in case he so desires, may file his grievance petition before the competent authority. As far as providing information under the RTI Act is concerned, requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant by the respondent.
67 CIC/SM/A/2011/000759
(208.66 KB) pdf icon
22 Mar, 2012 Raaj Managal Prasad Vs. Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi

Section 2 (f) – Information –
The Commission did not agree with the views of the Appellate Authority. No request for information can be rejected only on the ground that application fee has not been paid separately for each item.
68 CIC/DS/A/2011/001011
(208.16 KB) pdf icon
19 Mar, 2012 Mukender Singh Vs. All India Council for Technical Education, Chandigarh/ New Delhi

Section 2(f) – Information
The Commission held that a perusal of the RTI application reflects beyond doubt that the appellant has raised a matter of larger public interest pertaining to maintenance of the highest standards of education by the Guru Teg Bahadur Polytechnic College. The RTI Act is undoubtedly a welfare legislation and is intended to be a tool for securing the larger public interest and must necessarily be interpreted in a liberal manner. Therefore it was for the CPIO to provide all the rules governing the appointment of faculty to the appellant without wrongly taking shelter under the definition of information as provided under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Show cause notice issued to CPIO why penalty should not be imposed upon him.
69 CIC/SM/A/2011/001460
(206.21 KB) pdf icon
12 Mar, 2012 Omprakash Kashiram Vs. Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi

Section 2 (f) – Information
The Commission held that the right to information cannot be used to seek either confirmation or rebuttal of one’s personal assumptions, as in this case. Information has been defined in section 2(f) to mean any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars etc. Whenever a citizen seeks any information, it must be contained in some record or file or document in the possession of the public authority concerned. Therefore, the response of the CPIO of the CVC and other CPIOs as well as that of the Appellant Authority appears to be absolutely in order.
70 CIC/SG/A/2012/000043/17571
(45.14 KB) pdf icon
06 Mar, 2012 B.M. Tulasi Vs. MR. Seturaman, PIO & AGM, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Kuvempunagar, Mysore

Section 2(f) – Information
The Commission held that the Appellant should file the RTI application asking for information by name rather than asking the PIO to furnish his personal information directly.
71 CIC/SG/A/2011/000299/12229
(53.63 KB) pdf icon
02 May, 2011 Mr. HS Achyutha Vs. Public Information Officer, Employer’s Provident Fund Organisation, Mumbai.

The Appellant is seeking information which is not with EPFO but is with exempted organization TCS with whom the Appellant was working. The Respondent has stated that the information is not available with them nor is it required to be filed in any monthly or annual return.
CIC held that, the information sought is not held by the Public Authority. The Appeal is disposed.
72 CIC/SG/A/2010/001213/11928
(44.74 KB) pdf icon
09 Apr, 2011 Mr. Yogender Kumar Vivekananda College, Delhi Vs. Mr. Jay Chanda CPIO University of Delhi.

CIC held that, The PIO has given all the information available as per records. The Appellant is seeking answer to hypothetical situations. The PIO is expected to give information that is available on the records and not expected to give decision and opinions on his own. Decision: The Appeal is disposed.
73 CIC/SG/A/2011/000196/11644
(46.12 KB) pdf icon
24 Mar, 2011 Mr. Raj Kumar Anand vs Mr. R. N. Sharma Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (NE), Deputy Director of Education, Distt. North East, RTI Cell, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi

The appellant filed RTl application and sought the opinion of the PIO on pay revision — the PIO gave his interpretation of how the pay revision should occur — the Commission held that this is an error on the part of the PIO since he is not expected to create a record. The term opinions and advises used in section 2(f) of the RTI Act in the definition of information means opinions and advises available on the record. The PIO should not have given his own opinion but should have given what is the matter of record and is warned to provide information which is available on the records and not giving his own opinion.
74 CIC/AD/C/2010/000662
(307.18 KB) pdf icon
01 Mar, 2011 Shri K.V. Praveena vs East Central Railway Office of General Manager

The Commission held that the word ‘work’ appearing in section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act has to be construed as work which has been performed about which information is available in material form i.e. in Documents, file notings, as samples etc. the Section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act cannot be read in isolation but should be read along with section 2(f) which clearly stipulate that the information under RTI Act should be in material form. Hence, no individual can claim right to inspect ongoing work such as driving an engine, under RTI Act. The appellant’s demand cannot be acceded to as it falls beyond the definition of the information as given in section 2(f) read with section 2(j) of the RTI Act. Section 2(j)
75 CIC/SG/A/2010/002382/10257
(57.33 KB) pdf icon
01 Dec, 2010 CH. Srinivasa Rao vs Central Public Information Officer & RPFC-II Employees Provident Fund Organization

The Appellant sought information on large number of queries which otherwise would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. CIC held that, there is no provision in the RTI rules for charging any money on account of man power for collating information. Section 2 (f)
Total Case uploaded: 78