Central Information Commission
Bhawani Shankar Tiwari vs Indian Institute Of Management (Iim), ... on 21 April, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/CC/A/2015/002987/MP
Appellant : Shri Bhawani Shankar Tiwari, Raipur
Public Authority : IIM, Raipur
Date of Hearing : April 05, 2017
Date of Decision : April 19, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Not Present
Respondent : Shri Priyank Mitra, CPIO, Shri Dashmesh
Srivastava, Standing Counsel - through VC
RTI application : 19.08.2014
CPIO's reply : 18.09.2014
First appeal : 19.09.2014
FAA's order : NA
Second appeal : 18.03.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Bhawani Shankar Tiwari, the appellant, sought information regarding Backward Regions Grant Fund (BRGF) project under which a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between IIM, Raipur and Chhattisgarh Sate Institute of Rural Development (CSIRD), Nimora. The appellant sought details relating to plan of action, names of 2 master resource persons from each District; names of 10 data collectors of each District; names of the resource persons along with their date and place of training; etc., through eight points.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) informed the appellant that the BRGF project was done by the experts and since the information sought by him pertained to the disclosure of a part of research methodology adopted for the study which was an intellectual property, it could not be disclosed to him. Not satisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA) stating that the information sought by him was not exempt u/s 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 and requested the FAA to direct the CPIO to provide the requisite information. It was learned at the time of hearing that the FAA has adjudicated in the matter though, copy of the FAA's order has not been sent by the appellant with his RTI application. The appellant then came in appeal before the Commission stating that the information sought by him in his RTI application was incorrectly denied by the CPIO and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the requested information as it was required by the appellant in public interest.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present despite notice for hearing having been duly delivered to him. The appellant in his RTI application had sought certain information pertaining to Backward Regions Grant Fund (BRGF) project in Chhattisgarh through 8 points.
4. The respondent stated that the consultancy for the project in question was given to IIM, Raipur and Thakur Pyarelal Institute of Panchayat and Rural Development (TPIPRD), regarding which a Project Report was prepared by both the Institutes in consultation with their faculty members which, being a third party information had been treated as confidential by that third party and therefore, no information could have been divulged to the appellant without TPIPRD's concurrence in view of Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent further submitted that whatever information was available with the respondent authority had been provided to the appellant, already, by the FAA vide letter dated 15.10.2014. The respondent added that the project in question was not yet complete.
5. On hearing the respondent and perusing the records before it, the Commission observes that whatever information was available with the respondent has been provided to the appellant and that a public authority is not supposed to create or collate non-available, non-existing information for the satisfaction of the appellant u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. A public authority is supposed to furnish only that information to the appellant which is held by it or under its control in material/data form under the Act. The Commission further observes that the information sought by the appellant pertains to details which has been treated as confidential by third party and has been held by the respondent authority in a fiduciary relationship and is therefore, exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the Commission does not find any larger public interest involved in the matter. The Commission holds that the CPIO has appropriately responded to the appellant's RTI application. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Indian Institute of Management, Indian Institute of Management, GEC Campus, Sejbahar, GEC Campus, Sejbahar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492 015 Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492 015 Shri Bhawani Shankar Tiwari, B-506/Avenue- 144, Near Shri Medishine Hospital, New Rajendra Nagar, Amlidih, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492 001