Central Information Commission
Harish Chugh vs All India Council For Technical ... on 14 September, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/AICTE/A/2017/143458-BJ
Mr. Harish Chugh,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
All India Council for Technical Education,
Plot No. 1A, 5th Floor, DTE Punjab Building,
Dakshin Marg, Sector 36-A,
Chandigarh 160036
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.09.2018
Date of Decision : 14.09.2018
Date of RTI application 15.02.2017
CPIO's response 18.02.2017
Date of the First Appeal Nil
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 28.06.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the certified copy of the Board of Governors Members from the period 2010 to 2017.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 18.02.2017 stated that the information sought was not available with NWRO, Chandigarh. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Harish Chugh through VC;Page 1 of 4
Respondent: Mr. R. L. Sharma, Consultant, AICTE, RO Chandigarh through VC; and Mrs. Ruchika Kem, Asst. Director/CPIO, AICTE, New Delhi; Mr. Nawal Arora, Asst. Director & PIO, AICTE, New Delhi; Dr. K. K. Arora, Consultant, AICTE, New Delhi in person;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that complete and satisfactory information had not been provided to him. Emphasizing that he was seeking general information in respect of the Members of the Board of Governors (BoG) for the period from 2010 to 2017, the Respondent deliberately and malafidely skirted the issue and submitted a casual response whereas all such details were available with the Public Authority. It was emphatically stated that such details were of general nature and that an officer of the AICTE being an integral part of the BoG was fully conversant with the extant guidelines but deflected the issue by hiding information in their custody.
The Commission was in receipt of a letter dated 11.09.2018 addressed by the PIO, AICTE, Chandigarh to the CPIO, AICTE, New Delhi wherein it was stated that their office had already provided the information to the Appellant and a copy of the same was also endorsed to the CPIO vide letter dated 25.04.2017 and 14.07.2017 respectively.
The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. 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 Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, Page 2 of 4 etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Sayyed Education Society v. State of Maharashtra, WP 1305/2011 dated 12.02.2014 had held that public authorities are under a statutory obligation to maintain records and disseminate as per the provisions of the Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. The High Court in this respect, held as under:
"Needless to state that as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 14 in the case of CBSE and Another (supra), Public Authorities are under an obligation to maintain records and disseminate the information in the manner provided under Section 4 of the RTI act. The submission of the petitioner that it is an onerous task to supply documents, therefore is required to be rejected. The Law mandates preserving of Page 3 of 4 documents, supplying copies thereof to the applicant, in our view, cannot be said to be an onerous task."
Above all the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 had held as under:
"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."
During the hearing, when queried, the Respondent stated that their approval carries details of mandatory disclosure to be made by all such educational institutions and that they would re-examine and revisit the said matter to ensure that their guidelines were implemented in letter and spirit.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to ensure that the information of general nature should be made available to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 14.09.2018
Copy to:
1- The Chairman, AICTE, 1, Nelson Mandela Marg, Pocket 10, Sector B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, Delhi 11007 Page 4 of 4