Bharat bhushan Khulbe Vs Canteen Stores Dept.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION in
Bharat bhushan Khulbe Vs Canteen Stores Dept. in
Held that.
At the outset it is adequately clarified that in the present matter, the Commission is not adjudicating upon the status of URC vis-à-vis the RTI Act. In view of the facts of the present case, it is relevant to bring out the provisions of Section 2(j) and 2(f) of the RTI Act which clearly stipulates that:
Section 2(j) - “.... “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to — ...........”
Section 2(f) - “....“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 ...”
When the said two Sections are read together it becomes essentially clear that the RTI Application of the Appellant has to be construed in the spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Act. It is emphasised therefore that even if hypothetically the CPIO’s claim of URC not being a public authority is conceded with, fact remains that the Appellant has sought information from a public authority and not from URC, therefore the contention of the CPIO that URC is not a public authority will not apply to the merits of this case.
Further, his reliance on Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act is summarily rejected as the same is untenable in the facts of the present matter.
In view of the aforesaid, CPIO is directed to provide information to the Appellant pertaining to the RTI Application which is available with him or which he can access from URC . Commission’s direction should be complied within 15 days of the receipt of this order.
File No. CIC/SD/A/2016/000018