After having perused through the queries and the response provided thereto, Appellant Authority made the following remarks. It appeared that the queries are in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion from the respondent regarding disposal of his complaint filed on the SCORES portal. It is understood that the respondent is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. It was found that the said queries cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
In this context, reference is made to the matter of Vineet Pandey vs. CPIO, United India Insurance Company Limited (Judgment dated January 21, 2021), and Parvinder Singh vs. Public Information Officer under RTI (Order dated July 19, 2021) wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC.
Further, in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated January 17, 2013), it was noted that the Hon’ble CIC held: “… we would also like to observe that, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the citizen has the responsibility to specify the exact information he wants; he is not supposed to seek any opinion or comments or clarifications or interpretations from the CPIO…”. In view of the said observations, the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification/opinion under the RTI Act.
Further, the appellant, in his appeal, has raised grievance regarding filing of suits by a Trading Member and closure of complaints filed against the Trading Member. It was noted that the Hon’ble CIC, in the matter of Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow (Decision dated September 6, 2012), held: “The Appellant is informed that … redressal of grievance does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act rather it is up to the Appellant to approach the correct grievance redressal forum…”.
Further, in the matter of Ravindra Mamgain vs. CPIO (Decision dated May 28, 2021), the Hon’ble CIC held that “Further, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding the ……is a matter of grievance which cannot be adjudicated as far as mandate of RTI Act is concerned.” In view of these observations, it was found that if the appellant has any grievance, the remedy for the same would not lie under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
In view of the above-made observations, the application was remitted and to provide appropriate response within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
