Central Information Commission
Dr. Chandresh Parekha vs Internal Security Division on 1 April, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ISDIV/A/2023/617883
Dr. Chandresh Parekha ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Internal Security Division ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.03.2024
Date of Decision : 28.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.11.2022
PIO replied on : NA
First Appeal filed on : 14.12.2022
First Appellate Order on : NA
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 18.04.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.11.2022 to the PIO, Rashtriya Raksha University seeking information on fourteen points, including the following:-
"1. Provide the Travel Allowance Policy of the University and All the Schools (University/Schools of University Rules for the payment of travel allowance/ expenditure to be paid to the employees who travel anywhere in India and out of India for the official duties).
2. Provide the Accommodation Charges/Allowance Policy of the University and All the Schools (University/Schools of University Rules for the payment of Accommodation Allowance/Charges to be paid to the employee who stay in hotels during their official duties/tours at anywhere in India and out of India).
3. Provide the details such as name of the employees/directors and paid travel allowance to them for the last three years.
4. Provide the details such as name of the employees/directors and paid accommodation allowance/charges to them for the last three years.
5. Provide Recruitment Policy/Rules for the appointment of Directors and Teaching Staff (Present Policy and all Amendments/Revisions made for last three years).
6. Provide CAG Reports of the University for the last four years. Etc."
He received a response dated November 2022 as follows:
1. Provide the Travel Allowance Policy of the University and All the Schools (University/Schools of University Rules for the payment of travel Page 1 of 4 allowance/expenditure to be paid to the employees who travel anywhere in India and out of India for the official duties).
Answer: Gazette Notification of Statutes- RRU can be refer for Travel Allowance. RRU travel allowance policy is under approval.
2. Provide the Accommodation Charges/Allowance Policy of the University and All the Schools (University/Schools of University Rules for the payment of Accommodation Allowance/Charges to be paid to the employee who stay in hotels during their official duties/tours at anywhere in India and out of India). Answer: RRU travel allowance policy is under approval.
3 Provide the details such as name of the employees/directors and paid travel allowance to them for the last three years.
Answer: Sought information cannot be shared under section 8(1)(j) of RTI ACT 2005. As the details includes the travel of staff and Director for Clarified/confidential purposes with various security agencies.
4 Provide the details such as name of the employees/directors and paid accommodation allowance/charges to them for the last three years. Answer: Sought information cannot be shared under section 8(1)(j) of RTI ACT 2005. As the details includes the travel of staff and Director for Clarified/confidential purposes with various security agencies 5 Provide Recruitment Policy/Rules for the appointment of Directors and Teaching Staff (Present Policy and all Amendments/Revisions made for last three years).
Answer: The copy of recruitment rules of RSU can be provided.
6 Provide CAG Reports of the University for the last four years. Answer: Reports are under consideration of the appropriate competent authority as cannot be provided as on date.
7 Provide the duly signed Minutes of Meetings of all BoG/Governing Body meetings for the last five years.
Answer: Sought information cannot be shared under section 8(2) of RTI Act, 2005 8 Provide Teaching contributions (time table, total number of lectures taken, subject, course) of Directors of the All schools of university. Answer: Sought information is not available in desired manner.
9 Provide Research Contributions (Research publications, project taken, consultancy work etc.,) of Directors of All the Schools/Sections/Divisions of University.
Answer: Sought information is available on school pages of RRU website.
10 Provide all the Copy of the Bills of the payment paid for the purchase and renewal of the Plagiarism Checking Software by University and/or any Section/Division of the University from January 2011 to till November, 2022. Answer: Sought information cannot be shared under section 8(d) of RTI Act, 2005 11 Provide the details of the financial power given to all the Directors of All the Schools/Sections/Divisions of University. Answer: Sought information cannot be shared under section 8(2) of RTI Act, 2005 Page 2 of 4 12 Provide the copy of Plagiarism Checking Report of the Research Publications of the Teaching and Non-Teaching staff members of all schools whose contract of job/appointment have been renewed/reappointed in the year 2022. Answer: Sought information cannot be shared under section 8(d) and 8(e) of RTI Act, 2005 13 Provide the copy of Plagiarism Checking Report of the Research Publications of the Teaching and Non-Teaching staff members of all schools who have been appointed/newly joined in the year 2022.
Answer: Sought information cannot be shared under section 8(d) and 8(e) of RTI Act, 2005 14 Provide the details of the employees in the following table/format and relevant documents. (Annexure-A) Answer: No such information available as per the format attached Aggrieved by the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.12.2022 on points 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14. The First Appeal was adjudicated by the FAA vide order dated 27.01.2023, whereby point wise information had been furnished in details.
The Appellant was aggrieved since the First Appeal was decided on the basis of records and no opportunity of hearing had been granted to him. Hence, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Heard through audio conference Respondent: Shri Vivan Shah - Legal Advisor and Shri Devendra Varanva - Sr. clerk were heard through video conference.
Both parties reiterated their respective contentions. The Appellant contended that he was not satisfied with the reply sent by the Respondent public authority since it was not complete, in his understanding. He further stated that he was also aggrieved since the First Appeal was decided on the basis of records and he was not given a chance of personal hearing by the FAA.
Respondent present during hearing reiterated that information held in official records and as permissible under the RTI Act, had been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the Act.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of both the parties present for hearing, it is noted that the Respondent had furnished appropriate reply as per provisions of the RTI Act. On being asked whether he would want another opportunity of his First Appeal being heard personally before the FAA, the Appellant did not desire the same.
The facts of the case reveal that a lot of information sought by the Appellant is already available in public domain, as responded by the Respondent. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the Delhi High Court's decision dated 27.02.2015 in LPA No. 444/2012 case titled: Prem Lata vs. CIC & Ors. wherein it was held that:Page 3 of 4
"..21. We, for the reasons following, are of the view that neither can information already suo motu made available by the public authority in discharge of obligations under Section 4 be requested for under Section 6 of the Act nor is the CPIO required to reject the said request giving the reason of the information having suo motu been made available on the internet. ............
23..To hold, that notwithstanding the public authority, at a huge expense, having suo motu made information available to the public at large, is also to be burdened with dealing with request for the same information, would amount to a huge waste of resources of the public authorities. Experience of operation of the Act for the last nearly ten years has shown that the officers of the public authorities designated as CPIOs have other duties also and the duty to be discharged by them as CPIO is an additional duty. It cannot also be ignored that dealing with request for information is a time consuming process. If it were to be held that information already made available under Section 4 will have to be again provided under Sections 6 & 7, it will on the one hand not advance the legislative intent in any way and on the other hand may allow misuse of the provisions of the Act for extraneous reasons and allowing harassment of CPIOs by miscreants...."
In the light of the aforementioned discussion, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4