MANNATIL KUMAR Vs. THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:

(2.) THE petitioner, a retired employee of the Cochin Shipyard Limited filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi. He submitted a representation dated 07/12/2012 to the then Hon'ble Union Minister for Human Resource Development, Dr. Shashi Tharoor. This representation is to highlight denial of legitimate growth opportunities of Cochin Shipyard Limited. Since the petitioner did not receive any response for the letter, petitioner sought information from the Public Information Officer under the Ministry of Human Resources Development. The request of the petitioner is seen from Annexure -1 produced along with Ext. P2. This application was made on 17/01/2013. Petitioner received an information dated 08/02/2013 stating that as per the available records of office no such request has been received in that office. This is produced as Annexure -2 in Ext. P2. The petitioner sent a letter along with the communication received from the postal authorities confirming the delivery of the postal articles to Dr. Shashi Tharoor. Thereafter, petitioner received information from the Information Officer dated 22/05/2013, which is produced along with Ext. P2 as Annexure -6. It is stated in the above document that the request made by the petitioner is beyond the scope of responsibilities of the Hon'ble Minister of State. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority found that the information has already been provided with respect to the available information to the petitioner. This order is produced as Annexure -8. Annexure -8 was challenged before the Central Information Commission. The petitioner was also heard through video conferencing. The Commission also found no reason to interfere with the response of the Information Officer and other Appellate Authorities. It is challenging Ext. P1 order of the Central Information Commission, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) IT seems that the petitioner wants to know the outcome of his representation. If no decision has been taken on the petitioner's representation, it cannot be provided to the petitioner. By making a request for obtaining information, an applicant under the Right to Information Act cannot expect a public authority to generate "information". The information already available on the records has to be supplied to the petitioner. Seeking redressal of the grievance and obtaining information are different. As far as Right to Information Act is concerned what is expected to be provided is regarding the information that exists in available files. The nature of information sought for by the petitioner as seen from Annexure -1 is regarding nature of disposal of his representation. It can be responded by either stating that this was considered/not considered/what transpired on the file. If nothing has been acted upon such representation, it can be stated so. However, instead of providing information as to the outcome of such representation, the reply was given by the Public Information Officer stating that the representation is beyond the scope of responsibilities of the Minister of State. It seems reply is given as though the Public Information Officer is responding to the representation. The petitioner has not sought redressal of his grievance under the Right to Information Act in respect of the representation submitted by him. It seems the authorities have not understood the very scope of seeking information under the Act. The Appellate Authority as well as the Central Information Commission failed to provide information sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner submits that this is a fit case where Section 20 of the Right to Information Act can be imposed. I am of the view that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the respondents in not providing the information. The petitioner failed to make out any such case. Therefore, the petitioner's request to initiate action under S.20 of Right to Information Act is declined. Accordingly, Ext. P1 is quashed. There shall be a direction to the second respondent to provide information sought by the petitioner under Annexure -1 of Ext. P2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.