Central Information Commission
Sharda Prasad Singh vs Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar ... on 28 March, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/BBAUV/A/2024/623739
Sharda Prasad Singh ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University,
Lucknow ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 22.03.2024 FA : 21.04.2024 SA : 05.06.2024
CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record Hearing : 10.03.2025
Date of Decision: 28.03.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.03.2024 seeking information as under:
"Ph.D धारक अ थ ारा Ph.D उपरा , आई.सी.एस.एस.आर ारा िव पोिषत ोजे / ो ाम म बतौर रसच ाफ ( रसच एसोिसएट/ रसच अिस ट / फी इ े गेटर) िकये गए काय का, बाबासाहे ब भीमराव अ ेडकर िव िव ालय की सहायक ोफेसर भत म िजस कार से शै िणक दशन संकेतक (ऐपीआई ोर) मू ां कन िकया जाता है , उसका िववरण दान कर । यिद उपल हो तो स ंिधत प रप /िनयम/कायालय ापन/आदे श की एक ित दान कर ।"Page 1 of 5
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.04.2024. The FAA's order, if any, is not on record of the Commission.
3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 05.06.2024.
4. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Ashish Rastogi, DR & CPIO along with S N Abbas, AR attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The parties were heard at length during the course of which the Appellant's allegation harped on the CPIO not having provided a reply within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act and he wanted the CPIO to show proof of the dispatch of the physical copy of the replies sent to him as was claimed by the Respondent on record and during the hearing. It was also argued by the Appellant that the information provided by the CPIO does not contain what he has asked for in the RTI Application. The Appellant further lamented that the CPIO failed to provide a reply on the online portal and rather sent the reply through post. The Respondent on the other hand submitted that the reply was provided to the Appellant on 10.04.2024 quoting the relevant portion of the UGC Regulations, 2018. Since the records placed by the Respondent on record through electronic mode were not readily available with the Commission at the time, the hearing was concluded after directing the CPIO to ensure that the online submissions are linked to e-book of the instant second appeal for proper appreciation of the facts of the case.
6. The Commission in furtherance of the hearing proceedings observes at the outset that the Appellant has been submitting labored and misconceived arguments from the start of time as the second appeal memo filed on 05.06.2024 states no reply was provided by the CPIO, while the written submission filed by the Appellant on 25.02.2025 states that the RTI Application was disposed of after 46 days of filing it and that instead of uploading the reply on the portal, he received the reply through 3 speed post letter(s). This suggests that as on the date of filing the Second Appeal, the Appellant had received the reply of Page 2 of 5 10.04.2024 and infact he had himself enclosed a screenshot of the RTI online portal wherein it was shown that the RTI Application was disposed of on the portal on 07.05.2024. Now, as a matter of fact it is also pertinent to note that the Appellant filed the instant First Appeal alleging no reply received on the exact 30th day of filing the RTI Application, which in a strict sense even renders the First Appeal as premature and the resultant second appeal as not maintainable. Nonethless, despite taking a liberal view of the technicalities, the fact remains that the Appellant has no case to agitate against the Respondent through his written statement filed on 25.01.2025 or rejoinder filed on 15.02.2025, particularly when his RTI Application does not even qualify under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as he has sought for a clarification, interpretation, deduction to be provided by the CPIO for evaluation of API score. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide Page 3 of 5 advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the Page 4 of 5 citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. Having observed as above and finding the submissions and all supporting documents filed by the Respondent as satisfactory, no action is warranted in the matter.
8. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 28.03.2025 Authenticated true copy Sharad Kumar (शरद कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Deputy Registrar, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, (A Central University), Vidya Vihar, Raebareli Road, Lucknow - 226025
2. Sharda Prasad Singh Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)