Central Information Commission
Prem N Jayaswal vs Indian Institute Of Management Indore on 21 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/IIMIN/A/2017/136383-BJ
Mr. Prem N. Jayaswal,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Institute of Management Indore,
Prabandh Shikhar, Rau Pithampur Road,
Indore 453556 (MP)
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.08.2018
Date of Decision : 21.08.2018
Date of RTI application Nil
CPIO's response 06.10.2016
Date of the First Appeal 05.11.2016
First Appellate Authority's response 07.12.2016
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 30.05.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the recruitment of Programmer Batch, 2013 on Contract and Regular basis and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 06.10.2016, provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 07.12.2016, while concurring with the response of the CPIO on points 01 to 08 of the RTI application directed him to provide the merit and selection list of candidates to the Appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of the letter.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Jainath Yadav, Hindi Officer/PIO, IIM Indore; Prof. Dipayan Datta Chaudhuri, Exam Coordinator and Prof. Sanyog Ray, Deemed PIO/Professor (Information Systems) through VC;Page 1 of 3
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Deepak, Network Engineer NIC studio at Jabalpur confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent explained that the said examination was conducted on behalf of MPPKVVCL and the final results were also handed over to them for further necessary action. The CPIO/FAA had suitably replied in the matter.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 16.08.2018, wherein it was stated that the institute provided all the available information to the Appellant except the OMR sheets as it could not provide such data for all candidates, being personal information invading the privacy of the individuals. Furthermore, the copy of the question paper and answer keys of the said examination were also denied being intellectual property of the institute and exempted u/s 8 (1) (d). However, subsequent to the order of the FAA, the PIO provided the merit list and selection list of candidates to the Appellant vide letter dated 14.09.2016.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(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 ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information Page 2 of 3 relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु
)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 21.08.2018
Page 3 of 3