Central Information Commission
Mohit Kumar Gupta vs University Of Delhi on 3 May, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका, नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/UODEL/C/2018/633253/00569
File no.: CIC/UODEL/C/2018/633253
In the matter of:
Mohit Kumar Gupta
...Complainant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
University of Delhi
North Campus, New Administrative Building,
Delhi - 110 007
&
The PIO/ Principal
Daulat Ram College, 4 Patel Marg,
Maurice Nagar, Delhi University,
Delhi - 110 007
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 12/08/2018 CPIO replied on : 10/09/2018 First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Complaint dated : 09/10/2018 Date of Hearing : 29/03/2019,02/05/2019 Date of Decision : 29/03/2019,02/05/2019 The following were present: Complainant: Present
Respondent: Ms Meenakshi Sahay, Deputy Registrar(Information) & CPIO, Delhi University & Dr Asha, Assistant Professor & PIO, Daulat Ram College.
1Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the rules and regulation in the university applicable for video and/or audio recording of sports trials for the admission under sports quota.
2. Provide the rules and regulations (along with time periods) applicable for weeding out records relating to admissions each year in Undergraduate, postgraduate, professional and research course of the university.
3. Provide the certified copies of the attendance records of the Principal/First Appellate Authority and Public information officer of Daulat Ram College, University of Delhi for the months of January and July in the years 2016, 2017 and 2018.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Complaint:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The CPIO, University of Delhi submitted that a reply was sent by her on 10.09.2018. She replied as follows:
The information sought by the applicant has already been transferred to PI0/Principal, Daulat Ram College under intimation to the applicant under section 6(3) of the Act. A copy of the original application was endorsed to the Director (Delhi University Sports Council), Joint Registrar (General), Joint Registrar (Colleges) and Deputy Registrar (Academic) of the University, who are the deemed PIOs under section 5(4) & 5(5) of the Act.
1. Relevant input received from the Director Physical Education is enclosed in this regard, which indicates that the request of the applicant is not clear and non-specific as well in terms of particular trial, which is contrary to section 6(1) of the Act. However, it has been informed by the deemed PlO that the applicant may refer to Information Bulletin for undergraduate courses in this regard, which is available on the website of the University, www.du.ac.in under the head 'Admission Portal'-'Undergraduate Admission' -- 'UG Bulletin of Information20 18-19'. The applicant may go through it and draw his own conclusions accordingly.2
File no.: CIC/UODEL/C/2018/633253
2. The Weeding Out Rules of the University are available on the website of the University, www.du. ac. at the link, http://www.du.ac. inlduluploads/Notifications/0 11020 14_Notification.pdf. The applicant may go through it and draw his own conclusions accordingly. 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10&11. Relevant input received from the Director, Physical Education, Joint Registrar (Colleges)/Assistant Registrar (Colleges), Joint Registrar (Proc. & Store) and Deputy Registrar (Academic) is enclosed in this regard. On perusal of the original application, it appears that the requests are pertaining to Daulat Ram College. Relevant inputs received from the deemed PlO indicate that the information in this regard may be obtained from the concerned college. Therefore, the applicant may contact Daulat Ram College in this regard, which is a separate public Authority under section 2(h) of the Act. A copy of original application has already been transferred to Daulat Ram College under section 6(3) of the Act The complainant submitted that the only reply that he has received is a transfer letter dated 10.09.2018 u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act whereby the RTI application was transferred by the CPIO, Delhi University to the PIO, Daulat Ram College. However, he has received no response from the Daulat Ram College till date. He further submitted that the transfer done by the CPIO, Delhi University is also not valid as the same has been done beyond the prescribed time limit provided under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act which gave rise to the chain of delays thereafter. He also submitted that penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act may be imposed on the concerned PIO for not providing any reply to him.
To substantiate his submissions, he relied on the Commission's order passed in the case of Mr. Lalit Yadav v. Delhi Development Authority (CIC/KY/C/2015/000158) wherein following observation was made:
"In case of failure, in providing the complete and categorical information, issue-wise, by the respondents, within the same time frame, appellant will be at liberty to move this Commission under Section 18 read with Section 20 of RTI Act 2005 for imposing maximum penalty and even recommending for disciplinary proceeding against the erring officers of the DDA."3
He also quoted the judgment passed in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr vs. Aditya Bandopadhya, wherein following observation has been made by the Hon'ble Apex Court:
"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."
The CPIO, Ms Meenakshi Sahay, CPIO, Delhi University submitted that since the sought for information pertained to Daulat Ram College, hence the RTI application was transferred to the concerned PIO on 10.09.2018 for providing the requisite reply to the complainant. She also submitted that a reply was also provided to the complainant on behalf of the Delhi University dated 10.09.2018.
On an enquiry by the Commission from the PIO, Daulat Ram College whether any reply has been provided to the complainant after transfer of the above mentioned RTI application to them, the PIO submitted that since the complainant had filed numerous RTI applications seeking voluminous information in each of his applications, the reply could not be provided to him. At this point, the Commission again raised a query whether any specific reply after transfer of the RTI application has been provided to the complainant or not, the PIO, Daulat Ram College admitted that no reply has been provided till date.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and considering the submissions, both oral and written of the parties, it is noted that apart from a reply dated 10.09.2018 from the Delhi University, there is no other reply that has been provided to the complainant. Also, the PIO, Daulat Ram College, Dr Asha admitted the fact that no reply has been provided till date.
It is also noted that the CPIO, Delhi University had transferred the RTI application beyond the period of 05 days to which no satisfactory reason was 4 File no.: CIC/UODEL/C/2018/633253 provided by her during the hearing. All these events show the negligent attitude of the concerned officers towards the implementation of the RTI Act, particularly the PIO of Daulat Ram College, who has not given any reply till date and has admitted so.
Interim Decision:
The PIO's conduct in not having provided any reply on the RTI Application within the stipulated time-frame of the RTI Act amounts to gross violation of the provisions of the said Act. Accordingly, the Commission directs the PIO, Daulat Ram College, to appear before the bench on 02.05.2019 at 12.15 pm to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against her under Section 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. The PIO is also directed to send a copy of all supporting documents upon which she chooses to rely upon during the hearing. The said documents be sent to the Commission at least two days prior to the hearing via link-paper. If any other persons are responsible for the said omission, the PIO shall serve a copy of this order on such persons to direct their presence before the bench as well.
The case is adjourned Final hearing: 02/05/2019 The following were present:
Complainant: Dr Asha, Associate Professor & PIO, Department of Chemistry, Daulat Ram College.
Submissions made by Respondent during Hearing:
The PIO reiterated the contents of her written submissions dated 29.04.2019 and submitted that she has been discharging the additional duty of PIO since 2012 along with the convenorship of various Staff Council committees till date and this is the first time such a lapse has occurred from her side because the college was engaged in the admission process from 11th June to 30th August. The entire college, including the Administration Section, Accounts Section and all Departments are engaged in this massive exercise. Invariably the replies of multiple queries and on varied subjects in a single application are to be sought 5 from various Sections / Departments which are too preoccupied to respond in time. This constraint results in unintentional delay in giving a reply but there was no intention of not giving the reply or denying the information.
Sometimes, the receipt of information gets delayed due to unavoidable circumstances, resulting in a delayed reply which is purely unintentional. She further submitted that the complainant had filed multiple RTI applications with multiple information sought on the same date. One such similar application dated 6th August 2018 by the same applicant was replied via email (created by her for faster disbursal of information). As the information sought by him was too voluminous, he was requested to inspect the documents / records in person but he did not avail of the opportunity. She also submitted that since all the requisite information has been collected, the appellant can come to inspect the records and can take relevant copies of the documents he needs, as most of the information sought is quite voluminous. She concluded her submissions with a prayer that there has been no deliberate delay or malafide denial of any information on her part till date and it was purely unintentional and tendered her apology for the same.
The Commission is also in receipt of a letter dated 29.04.2019 from the Principal, Daulat Ram College explaining that due to various administrative reasons, timely replies to the RTI application could not be given.
Observations:
The above explanation of Dr Asha, the PIO, Daulat Ram College was perused. In the said explanation, she wanted to justify that it was purely due to unavoidable circumstances and various administrative reasons that no reply was provided to the appellant and that she had every intention of providing the information to the appellant .She has now compiled all the information and is willing to share the same with the appellant. It was just because multiple RTI applications were filed by the same appellant in the month of August when admissions process was already going on and without any assistance, a timely reply could not be provided. While undoubtedly there has been a fault on the part of the respondent for failing to give information, on hearing the CPIO, the Commission is unable to attribute any malafide on her part. However, the respondent authority adopted a very casual and callous approach in handling the RTI applications. It is therefore abundantly clear that RTI matters are not 6 File no.: CIC/UODEL/C/2018/633253 being given the right attention as required under law, which clearly reflects the disrespect being shown towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007dated 28 April, 2009 wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
The Commission however also observes that Dr Asha the CPIO has already been penalised under Sec. 20(1) of the RTI Act for not providing any reply relating to the RTI dated 12.08.2018 filed by the same appellant owing to the same reasons cited by her which pertains to that same period. Therefore, imposing penalty on her for the same time period for a case of the same appellant, on a similar issue would tantamount to double jeopardy. The objectives of the Act is to ensure timely supply of relevant information to the appellant and imposing penalty twice on her would bring no reform, until and unless the higher authorities of the College take cognizance of the above observations and evolve a system to monitor each RTI and improve the system of disposal of RTI applications.
Decision:
The Commission expresses its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the PIO in not responding to the RTI application, whatsoever may be the reasons. The least the PIO could have done is to have given an interim reply within the time limit prescribed. It appears that she was not aware of the 7 statutory provisions of the RTI Act which requires a timely reply to the applicant.
A strict warning is issued to the present PIO for failing in her statutory responsibility under the RTI Act in not providing any reply to the appellant within the stipulated time frame. She should remain careful in future while handling RTI matters.
A copy of this order shall be sent to the FAA, Daulat Ram College for appropriate action as per the observations made above.
With the above order, the show-cause proceeding is treated as closed. Copies of the order are to be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 8