RTI Information Cannot Be Compelled Where Records Are Unavailable Due to Custodian's Death

The petitioner filed an RTI application on 02.03.2020 before respondent No. 6 (PIO, Janpad Panchayat Bagicha) seeking records of teacher appointments from 2008–09.

The PIO informed the petitioner on 16.03.2020 that records were with respondent No. 7 (Block Education Officer) and would be supplied upon receipt.

Prematurely, the petitioner filed a first appeal. On 01.07.2020, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) noted that the relevant clerk had died in 2013 and documents were missing; it directed an inquiry and action against responsible officials.

On second appeal, the State Information Commission (SIC) modified this order on 12.08.2021, closing the matter because the clerk was deceased and the documents were unavailable.

1. Whether the First Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction under the RTI Act by directing an inquiry into administrative negligence and missing records.

2. Whether the Second Appellate Authority was justified in closing the matter due to the non-availability of records and the death of the custodian.

The court applied the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, specifically Section 19 regarding the appeals process.

The court emphasized the limited scope of the RTI Act, which is confined to the dissemination of existing information held by public authorities.

The court relied on the principle that authorities cannot be compelled to provide information that is not available in their records, and that RTI appellate proceedings are not the appropriate forum for conducting inquiries into service negligence or disciplinary matters.

The Court observed that the PIO had never refused to provide information but had merely requested time to requisition documents from the Block Education Officer.

The Court reasoned that the FAA erred by bypassing the factual matrix and entering into the domain of disciplinary inquiry, which was beyond its jurisdictional scope under the RTI Act.

The Court supported the SIC’s decision to set aside the inquiry direction, noting that since the custodian clerk had expired and the records were not physically available at that office, the SIC's modification was legally sustainable.

The Court noted that the petitioner could still pursue the information from the actual custodial office (BEO) rather than the Janpad Panchayat.

It concluded that the FAA committed an error of law by directing an inquiry.

The petition was disposed of with a direction/liberty: if the petitioner still requires the documents, he may apply to the Block Education Officer, Bagicha, who must then pass a reasoned order regarding the availability of the 2008-09 records.