### Public Information Officer Cannot Be Directed to Provide Records Maintained by Another Government Department

Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) on 17.02.2020, seeking an attested copy of the gradation list of Class-IV employees (peons) posted in the Office of the Advocate General (Petitioner).

The Petitioner contended that such lists are maintained by the Law and Legislative Affairs Department of the State Government, not their office.

Despite this, the Respondent No. 1 (State Information Commission) passed an order on 23.11.2021 directing the Petitioner to provide the information.

The Petitioner challenged this order before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, further arguing that the Office of the Advocate General does not constitute a "Public Authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act due to its fiduciary relationship with the government.

Whether the Office of the Advocate General is liable to provide the information sought regarding the gradation list of Class-IV employees.

Whether the Office of the Advocate General falls within the definition of "Public Authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The Court's decision centered on the administrative control over records under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

It considered Section 2(h) of the Act, which defines "Public Authority".

The Petitioner relied on the precedent of Union of India v. Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice (2017 SCC OnLine Del 6813), which suggests that the Office of the Advocate General maintains a fiduciary relationship with the State and thus may not be a public authority.

However, the primary legal determination rested on the factual custody of records, as evidenced by a communication from the Law and Legislative Affairs Department.

The Court examined a communication dated 04.06.2021 (Annexure-P/12) issued by the Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh.

This document conclusively proved that the gradation list for Class-IV employees working in the Office of the Advocate General is actually maintained and held by the Law and Legislative Affairs Department rather than the Petitioner's office.

Consequently, even if the RTI Act applied, the Petitioner could not be compelled to provide documents it does not maintain.

Regarding the larger legal question of whether the Advocate General is a "Public Authority" under Section 2(h), the Court found it unnecessary to adjudicate this point given that the Petitioner did not possess the specific records sought.

The Court held that since the requested records are maintained by the Law and Legislative Affairs Department, the Petitioner is not liable to provide them.

The Court expressly declined to decide the issue of whether the Office of the Advocate General is a "Public Authority".

Liberty was granted to Respondent No. 2 to file a fresh application before the Law and Legislative Affairs Department to obtain the sought information.