New Delhi, Jan 18 (NationPress) The Central Information Commission (CIC) has rejected an appeal made by an advocate requesting information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act concerning the cancellation of a fruits and vegetables supply contract at a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Haryana. The Commission noted that an advocate is not permitted to seek information on behalf of a client through the RTI process.

Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi emphasized that the appellant, who is an advocate, sought information for his brother, a supplier to PM Shri Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya located in Odhan of Sirsa district. “The lack of any specific reasoning from the Appellant regarding the need for seeking information on behalf of his brother, who could request information independently as a citizen, indicates that the Appellant is trying to obtain information for his client, which is not permitted,” the CIC remarked.

The Commission referenced a ruling from the Madras High Court, which stated that a practicing advocate may request information as a citizen but cannot do so on behalf of their client as an advocate. It warned that the RTI Act should not be exploited as a means for advocates to gain excessive information to aid their practice.

The CIC reiterated the Madras High Court’s statement that “the commendable goals of the RTI Act should not be manipulated for personal gain.”

The appellant's request included extensive information dating back to 2019, such as tender announcements, bids, committee information, laboratory results, blacklisting notices, service records, salary details, property disclosures of a Section Officer, and inspection reports regarding alleged supply of inferior quality vegetables on December 5, 2022.

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) and Principal of the school informed the applicant that much of the requested documentation had been lost in a fire that occurred on the night of July 12, 2024. “Due to the fire incident in the school office, all records have been obliterated. Therefore, we cannot provide the requested information,” their response stated, including police and fire department reports.

For several other inquiries, the CPIO denied disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, citing the personal nature of the information requested. The CIC acknowledged the school’s assertion that the contract was terminated due to consistent deficiencies in supply and the issuance of three warning letters, finding “no discrepancies in the CPIO's response” and confirming it aligned with the RTI Act, 2005.

In line with the RTI Act, the CIC instructed the CPIO to provide the appellant with copies of his written submissions, free of charge, within one day of receiving its order.

Concluding the appeal, Information Commissioner Relangi remarked, “With this directive, the Commission's further involvement is unnecessary.”