Central Information Commission
Rajesh Kumar vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 31 May, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Fl oor, B Wing, August Kranti B hawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066
website-cic.gov.in
Complaint No. CIC/SA/C/2016/000146/MP
Complainant : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hooghly
Public Authority : 1) MHRD, New Delhi
2) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi
3) Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Noida
Date of Hearing : May 17, 2017
Date of Decision : May 31, 2017
Present:
Complainant : Not present
Respondent : Shri Varun Mitra, Asstt. Commissioner, Ms. Veena
Sharma, Asstt. Commissioner, Shri S.S. Chauhan, Asstt.
Commissioner and Shri T. Surya Prakash, Section
Officer - at CIC
RTI application : 28.12.2015
CPIO's reply : 08.01.2016, 21.01.2016, 28.01.2016 & 02.02.2016
First appeal : 10.02.2016
FAA's order : 25.02.2016
Complaint : 16.03.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Rajesh Kumar, the complainant sought names, permanent address, contact numbers and caste of all the backward class students and employees of all IITs in India and names, designations and present posting, permanent address, contact number and caste of all the backward class employees of all the KVS and NVS schools across India.
2. The CPIO, MHRD intimated the complainant that with respect to information sought on point (i) & (ii) related to IITs it was not available with him and provided a list of CPIOs of all IITs advising the complainant to approach them directly. The CPIO, KVS (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan) intimated the complainant that the entire exercise of collecting and compiling the information would disproportionately divert the resources of public authority. The CPIO, NVS (Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti) intimated the complainant that the information sought was not maintained in the format as sought by the complainant. Dissatisfied, the complainant approached the FAA. The FAA, MHRD upheld the CPIO's reply. Not quite satisfied, the complainant made a complaint before the Commission stating that unsatisfactory information had been provided to him.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant was not present in spite of the notice of hearing having been sent to him.
4. The CPIO, NVS stated that no such data was being maintained as sought by the complainant. As far as the NVS was concerned almost 600 schools had come under the jurisdiction of NVS in various States and almost 20000 employees were working with NVS and no such system was available from which the information sought could be provided in the format as sought. However, the details of OBC Principal and Vice Principal had been provided to the complainant on 01.04.2016. The CPIO, KVS stated that total 1122 Kendriya Vidyalayas and 25 Regional Offices were there under their jurisdiction and collecting and compiling the information sought would disproportionately divert the resources of public authority.
5. The Commission observes that the CPIO, under the RTI Act, is required to furnish information/documents as available on record and is not supposed to collect and collate information in the manner in which it was sought by the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 09/08/2011 in the matter of CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) held:
"35......... But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant.....
67.......... 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 prioritizing information furnishing, at the cost of their normal and regular duties"
The matter has been further clarified by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 07/01/2016 [LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015 The Registrar of Supreme Court of India vs Commodore Lokesh K Batra & Ors.] holding as under:
"15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, "right to information" under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which it is sought by the applicant."
In view of the above, no intervention is required on the Commission's part. The complaint is closed.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
Complainant Shri Rajesh Kumar R/o 35, Lawrence Street, Block-13/B Flat No. D, Post & PS- Uttarpara Distt.- Hooghly, West Bengal-712258 The Central Public Information Officer M/o Human Resource Development Under Secretary Department of Higher Education Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi The Central Public Information Officer Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Jt. Commissioner (Pers.) 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016 The Central Public Information Officer Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Asstt. Commissioner(Estt.) B-15, Institutional Area, Sector-62 Noida, Gautam Budh nagar, UP-201309