Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001479-BJ. Case: Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs CPIO, SEBI. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001479-BJ |
| Judges | Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Constitution Of India - Articles 19(1)(a), 21; Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 2(j), 24, 4(1)(b), 6, 8, 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d), 8(2) |
| Judgement Date | March 10, 2017 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner FACTS: 1. The appellant, vide his RTI application sought information on 10 points regarding papers in entire file along with noting relating to the appointment of Oliver Wyman to draft strategy and re-organisation structure of SEBI, number and name of the firms which bid for consultancy assignment and the amount quoted by them, reason for need for appointing a private consultant after SEBI had been in existence for past 25 years and issues related thereto. 2. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 18.09.2013 provided a point wise response to the appellant. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 18.11.2013, concurred with the reply of the CPIO. 3. It was noted that IC (SB) vide its order dated 23.02.2017 transferred the matter to the registry of IC (BJ) on account of revised allocation of work amongst registries w.e.f., 10.01.2017. HEARING: Facts emerging during the hearing: 4. The following were present: Appellant: Mr. Arun Kumar Agrawal (M: 9845097444) in person; Respondent: Mr. Jeevan S., CPIO (M: 9819344904) and Mr. Naveen Kumar, AM (M: 9833109918) in person; 5. Both the parties were offered opportunity by the Commission to be present through videoconferencing at respective places but they voluntarily chose to present themselves personally. 6. The appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that the information sought by him is covered under Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, 2005. Explaining the background of the case, the appellant stated that the matter relates to the contract given to a private contractor for performing a statutory function. The respondent submitted that a point wise reply was provided to the appellant vide a letter dated 18.09.2013 wherein a Request for Proposal (RPF) and Expression of Interest (EOI) was furnished after the payment of requisite fee for photocopying charges was paid by the appellant. The appellant raised a query seeking clarification on point No. 3 as to why was a private consultant hired to suggest medium and long term measures for redesigning SEBI's functions. The respondent submitted that the CPIO and the FAA had given details of the website where such procedural details were displayed in its reply to the RTI application. Furthermore, it was submitted that this was an internal matter of the public body and seeking clarifications or reasons for the same was outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent further explained that the information involving public interest was already available in public domain. It was also noted that the FAA vide its detailed order dated 18.11.2013 adjudicated on the issue of seeking reasons from the public authority under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act had denied the disclosure of such reasons/clarification under the aforesaid provision. The FAA referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under: 35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary... |
To continue reading
Request your trial