Central Information Commission
M R Nimbalkar vs Guru Ghasidas Vishvidyalaya, Bilaspur on 8 November, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/GGVBP/A/2020/694468 +
CIC/GGVBP/A/2020/694446
M R Nimbalkar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya,
RTI Cell, Koni, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh-
495009 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02/11/2021
Date of Decision : 02/11/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - All the above-mentioned are clubbed together for the sake of brevity as
the nature of information sought in all the instant RTI Application(s) are
identical in nature.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29/07/2020 &17/08/2020
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 31/08/2020 &17/09/2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17/11/2020 &17/11/2020
1
CIC/GGVBP/A/2020/694468 +
CIC/GGVBP/A/2020/694446
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application(s) dated 29.07.2020 &17.08.2020 seeking the following information;
1) Copy of pages of Tabulation Register of Dr. C V Raman University Science, Technology, Commerce and Management, Raipur wherein entries of students are recorded by Guru Ghasidas University under Statue 27(A) from 2008 to 2012
2) Copy of pages of passing certificate issue register of Dr. C V Raman University Science, Technology, Commerce and Management, Raipur wherein entries of students are recorded by Guru Ghasidas University under Statue 27(A) from 2008 to 2012
3) Copy of pages of convocation certificate issue register of Dr. C V Raman University Science, Technology, Commerce and Management, Raipur wherein entries of students are recorded by Guru Ghasidas University under Statue 27(A) from 2008 to 2012 Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed First Appeals
(s) dated 31.08.2020 &17.09.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present. (Remained unavailable for audio-conference hearing.) Respondent: Dr. Sampooranand Jha, Deputy Registrar (Exams)/ PIO present through audio-conference.
The PIO invited attention of the bench towards the latest reply provided to the Appellant vide email dated 29.10.2021, relevant portion of which is as follows -
...... it is to inform him that photocopy of tabulation register is not allowed, therefore, it cannot be given. It is also related to third party case, you have not provided the contract Address or email of Mr. Thygaraj C.M. yet, therefore we could not get consent from him. It is further inform that 2 you have also sought the passing certificate and convocation certificate of Mr. Thygaraj C.M., in this regard it is to inform him that passing certificate and convocation certificate is only provided to the student on his/her request on the prescribed application, it cannot be given to the third party....."
Decision:
The Commission remarked at the outset that a bunch Appeal (s) bearing File no. CIC/GGYBP/A/2020/106175 & others of the same Appellant against the Respondent has already been heard and disposed off by this bench on 24.08.2021 with the following observations -
" The instant Appeal has been heard together along with other 16 mattes of the Appellant simultaneously and the Commission at the outset based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the same nature of information sought by inter changing the serial numbers of information sought in each of his RTI Applications merely to pressurize the public authority into acceding to his request for similar nature of information. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality, a notion well recognised by superior Courts through various judgments such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v.Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions 3 under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the foregoing, the Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future."
Considering the totality of facts and multiplicity of the Appellant's RTI Applications, the aforesaid ratio is fully applicable to the instant case as well.
Further, the Commission observes from perusal of records that the information sought by the Appellant regarding records of students stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act, yet the recent factual reply provided by the CPIO is in keeping with the spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
Moreover, the Appellant did not turn up to plead his case or contest CPIO's submission despite receipt of prior intimation of hearing from the registry of this bench. In view of this, no further relief is pertinent in the matter.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5