Jump to content
News Ticker
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
  • 0
njit

u/s 2(f) only information "relating to" can be provided and not "held by"

Question

njit

Kind Attention of all RTI pros,

 

1. FAA has rejected my appeal by citing the reason that only information "related to" private body can be provided and information "held by" private body cannot be provided.

2. This decision is dated and has been sent well past the 45 days deadline.

 

If this is upheld by CIC then it seems it will be another death knell to RTI act 2005.

 

Please give your valuable views, opinions, suggestions.

 

Thanks and Regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
karira

In order for the members to guide you correctly, please upload your RTI application, PIOs reply, your first appeal and also the FAAs order.

 

If you have already discussed the matter before on this forum, give a link so that the two threads can be merged.

 

The FAA might be correct because not all information held by a private body can be accessed by a public authority (PA) under RTI. Only that information can be accessed which the public authority can do so under any other law for time being in force.

 

You have to find out under which law can the PA access the information you asked for.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
dr.s.malhotra

FAA may and may not be correct . Plz reproduce your RTI request here for correct picture .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
njit

To answer Kariraji's query, yes there is provision to access the information form the private body.

 

I will upload the information but what FAA is saying is something to do with RTI Act itself, the wording of 2(f) is being stressed upon.

 

FAA wrote that "section 2(f) refers to the information "relating to" private body and not "held by" private body, thus it does not provide any such authority to PA to access any information held by a private body".

This raises fundamental doubts;

1. if this is correct then any information held by private body can not be accessed even if there is a availability of law to access it.

2. this will become a exclusion even without having any mention in the Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
ganpat1956

The reliance on Sec 2(f) by the FAA has to be looked into only with reference to the context of the RTI application, its reply by PIO , the first appeal and FAA's order on it and not merely by itself in isolation. That is why Karira has requested you to upload them for a more meaningful discussion by our members. If you so desire, you can remove your personal details and upload the rest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

FAA wrote that "section 2(f) refers to the information "relating to" private body and not "held by" private body, thus it does not provide any such authority to PA to access any information held by a private body".

 

 

Technically the FAA is right. It is only "relating to" a private body.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
parsar

(1).The Act has not provided to access what a private body holds, as 2 (f) reads ...... "information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;"

 

(2). Thus the FAA may be right in your case.

 

(3). The information related to private body which has been disclosed to the PA or any other PA as per the laws of any, only be provided by PA. Further say the a private body entered into a

contract or business agreement held is a private matter a and not accessible to any PA and same cannot be provided.

 

(4). The related info of private body, if treated as third party in that case the s. 11 to be followed in providing the information

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
njit

RTI application contents:

Subject matter of Information: I have registered a complaint against xyz with DoT. DoT registration no. of this complaint is DOTEL/xxx dated xxxx.

Description of the information required: Please inform me reasons of deactivation of my number xxxx.

CPIO reply: You have not sought an information available with CPIO in material form

FA contents:

The information pertaining to my RTI application should be available with your department/CPIO in view of my complaint no. DOTEL/xxx. If the information is not made available by the licensee in response to the said complaint then your department/CPIO should have accessed the information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act and under the provisions of the license agreement.

FAA reply: section 2(f) refers to the information "relating to" private body and not "held by" private body, thus it does not provide any such authority to PA to access any information held by a private body

 

 

Here I would like to assure all, that the deactivation of my number is not out of any commercial dispute but it is an act of intimidation and retaliation for questioning and pursing with DoT a gross irregularity of the telecom operator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
jetley

I think we are erring by focusing only on "relating to" vs "held by". What also deserves close attention is "which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law". So it can be viewed as follows -

 

1. Information that is held by the private body can be of 2 categories - one, that can be accessed by a public authority under any other law, and second, that cannot be accessed by a public authority under any other law.

2. The 1st category of information can be obtained under RTI, the 2nd category of info cannot.

3. So what needs to be seen in y our case is, does the sought information fall in the 1st category or the 2nd category.

4. Accordingly, the decision of the FAA may be right or wrong.

 

The relevant issue in your case may be - does the concerned public authority have the powers to access the "reasons of deactivation of the number of a particular subscriber"? If yes, then you have a case here, otherwise the FAA is correct.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

description of the information required: Please inform me reasons of deactivation of my number xxxx.

 

Do you know under which law can DOT access this information from the private operator ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
njit

Please refer to Department of Telecommunications- Units. This page lists information of a TERM cell of DoT.

Further the FAA is rejecting the FA on the first few words of section 2(f) "information relating to any private body" and not disputing last words of 2(f) "which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

Jetley,

 

You have hit the nail on the head !

 

Please refer to the following observation by Justice Ravindra Bhatt from Delhi HC made in his judgment (single bench) in the matter of asset declaration of SC Judges:

 

36. The definition of “information” under Section (f) is as follows:

 

““information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force..”

 

As evident, the definition is extremely wide; the crucial words are “any material in any form”. The other terms amplify these words, explaining the kind of forms that information could be held by an authority. It also includes “information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”. Facially, the definition comprehends all matters which fall within the expression “material in any form”. There is no justification in cutting down their amplitude by importing notions of those materials which are mandatorily held by it. The emphasis is on the information available, having regard to the objectives of the Act; not the manner in which information is obtained or secured by the authority. Thus, inter se correspondence of public authorities may lead to exchange of information or file sharing; in the course of such consultative process, if the authority borrowing the information is possessed of it, even temporarily, it has to account for it, as it is “material” held. As far as the later part of the definition, i.e. accessing of information by or under any law, is concerned, it appears that this refers to what is with a private organization, but can be accessed by the public authority, under law. The court deduces this, because the theme is included by the conjunctive “and”; but for such inclusion, such private information would not have been subjected to the regime of the Act. Therefore, it is held that all “material in any form” includes all manner of information;

 

Even the words "held by" or "under the control" (Sec 2(j)) were adequately dealt with in the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi HC when the SC went into appeal - in the same matter of assets declaration of SC Judges:

 

61. The words „held by‟ or „under the control of‟ under Section 2(j) will include not

only information under the legal control of the public authority but also all such

information which is otherwise received or used or consciously retained by the

public authority in the course of its functions and its official capacity. There are any

numbers of examples where there is no legal obligation to provide information to

public authorities, but where such information is provided, the same would be

accessible under the Act. For example, registration of births, deaths, marriages,

applications for election photo identity cards, ration cards, pan cards etc. The

interpretation of the word „held‟ suggested by the learned Attorney General, if

accepted, would render the right to information totally ineffective.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira
Please refer to Department of Telecommunications- Units. This page lists information of a TERM cell of DoT.

 

You asked the following information:

 

Please inform me reasons of deactivation of my number xxxx.

 

Monitoring function 2.2(g) might cover this.

Obviously, DOTs TERM cells can access this information.....but under which law ?

Are the duties of a TERM cell or the establishment of TERM cells under any law currently in force ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
njit

Thanks Kariraji, your post # 12 should take care of FAA's interpretation of the Act.

 

Is anyone know of any Appeal under the Act where the intimidation faced by the RTI appelant is prayed to be redressed, please let me know with details.

 

Thanks everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
dr.s.malhotra

If you can prove victimization / prejudice , then you have a good case for consumer forum .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
jetley
If you can prove victimization / prejudice , then you have a good case for consumer forum .

 

How does it improve the case? Please provide some citations if possible

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Shree Vathsan
      By Shree Vathsan
      The person in the article below is me. I had a corporation official visit my house with the RTI and asking for my whereabouts. However the PIO has sent a reply on 8/5/19  stating that AE Div 170 is the person responsible for inspecting the banners on the particular stretch. It is after finalising this reply that I had got a call from AE Div 170 on 8/5/19 evening and a person visited my house on 9/5/19. The reply sent by PIO dated 8/5/19 was received on 11/5/19.
      Further The AE has stated that he has inspected the stretch and removed illegal banners immediately. However I have material evidence that the banners remained in the same place from afternoon till late night. Only the persons who kept the banner had removed them. So can I penalise the PIO for providing false and incorrect information. 
       

    • ganpat1956
      By ganpat1956
      A Supreme Court lawyer has moved the Central Information Commission seeking information on the procedure of the recruitment of class III and IV employees in the Delhi High Court after it was denied by its administration.
       
      Advocate Kamini Jaiswal approached the CIC contending that orders of the High Court Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer (First Appellate Authority) refusing to part away with the information was a violation of the Right to Information Act and also her Fundamental Rights.
       
      She alleged that information had been denied for erroneous reasons and none of the exemption available under Section 8 of the Act allows the authority not to part away with the information sought.
       
      The lawyer had filed the application before the Public Information Officier on September 22, 2006 seeking information regarding number of class III and class IV employees recruited by the Court from the year 1990 to 2006 and the procedure followed for their recruitment.
       
      The High Court PIO while denying the information held that information pertaining to those decisions which were taken administratively or quasi-judicially would be available only to the affected parties.
       
      The lawyer then approached Appellate Authority challenging the PIO order contending that the High Court (Right to information) Rules were inconsistent with the provision of the Right to Information Act and it should be held void.
       
      But the Appellate Authority refused to accept the contention of the lawyer and dismissed her appeal. Now the lawyer has moved Central Information Commission against this order.
       
      CIC moved on recruitment procedure of High Court .:. NewKerala.Com, India News Channel

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy