Central Information Commission
Mr.Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Cbse on 30 January, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110067
Tel: +91-11-26105682
File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/003029/RM
Appellant: Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal,
Delhi
Public Authority: CBSE, New Delhi
Date of Hearing: 10.12.2012
Date of decision: 11.12.2012
Appellant not present.
The Public Authority is absent.
FACTS
Vide RTI dt 16.5.11 appellant had sought information on nine points with reference to a news clipping from Nav Bharat Times dt 11.5.11 and a note by Dr Ram Chandra of Hindu College.
2. PIO vide letter dt 14.6.11, provided a response.
3. An appeal was filed on 16.6.11.
4. AA vide order dt 19.7.11, disposed of the appeal.
5. As both the appellant and public authority are absent, decision is being taken on the basis of records available.
DECISION 1
6. The appellant has questioned the response of the PIO CBSE in referring to their website, while responding to the RTI and has sought a point wise response to all the queries separately. In his appeal to the Commission, the appellant has observed "An RTI petitioner is not supposed to have necessarily a facility of internet , and, as such, all RTI responses should be provided in hard copy if not specified otherwise".
The Commission do not agree with the contention of the appellant due to following provisions of the RTI Act and decisions of the Commission and the Delhi High Court.
Section 4(2) of the RTI Act read as follows:-
"It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirement of clause( b) of sub section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information".
7. The Commission has held in the case CIC/AT/A/2007/00112 dated 12.4.2007 that once the information is brought in to the public domain it is excluded from the purview of the RTI Act. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Registrar of Companies and others Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg and anothers decided on 1.6.2012 has held that Right to Information is specifically conferred by the RTI Act is that information which " is held by or under the control of any public authority".
8. In the light of the above, the Commission cannot accept the contention of the appellant relating to the information available on the website be provided in hard copy.
9. The Commission, however, finds that the CBSE has not provided a response to point no. 4, 6, 7 and 9 of the RTI application. The PIO(Academic), CBSE is directed to provide a proper response to the appellant within 10 days from date of receipt of the order. He should also explain as to why departmental action should not be recommended against him for absenting himself from the hearing on 10.12.2012. His written submission should reach the Commission within three weeks.
The appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commissioner 30.1.13 2 The Commission is in receipt of letter dt 16.1.2013 from Director (CTET) and FAA, along with written submissions from Asstt Secretary and CPIO (CTET). The Commission observes that a response on queries 4,6,7 and 9 of the RTI Act has since been sent by the PIO vide letter dt 7.1.13. Further, he has tendered written apology and assured compliance of CIC instructions in future. Hence, further proceedings are dropped.
Sd/-
(Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy forwarded to :
The CPIO(Academic) (RTI Cell) CBSE Shiksha Kendra,2, Community Centre Preet Vihar, New Delhi -110301.
The First Appellate Authority (RTI Cell) CBSE Shiksha Kendra,2, Community Centre Preet Vihar, New Delhi -110301.
Shri. Subhash Chandra Agrawal 1775 Kucha Lattushah Dariba, Delhi -110006.
(Raghubir Singh) Deputy Registrar .01.2013 3