Central Information Commission
Rajesh Gouhari vs Department Of Higher Education on 23 September, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DHEDU/C/2019/129070
Rajesh Gouhari ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Higher
Education, RTI Cell, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/09/2021
Date of Decision : 22/09/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 18/02/2019
CPIO replied on : 08/03/2019
First appeal filed on : 26/02/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 13/03/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 17/06/2019
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 18.02.2019 seeking the following information;
1. Whether EdCIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules notified in 2003 are vetted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development.1
2. If so, please supply certified copy of complete file notings and approval of the Ministry as also certified copy of correspondence in respect of Government's approval for Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules 2003 of EdCIL.
3. Whether EdCIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules notified 2003 afterward are vetted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
4. If so, please supply certified copy of complete file notings and approval of the Ministry as also certified copy of correspondence relating to approval accorded by the Government for those EdCIL rules.
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 26.02.2019.
The CPIO, Technical Coord. Section, DoHE informed the complainant on 08.03.2019 that;
" ..........no such information sought by you vide your RTI application is available in the TC Section, under the charge of the undersigned CPIO. Hence the requisite information is NIL.
2. However, as the matter relates to Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of EdCIL, Vigilance Section of MHRD may have examined the matter. Therefore, your RTI application is being forwarded to CPIO & Under Secretary( Vigilance), Ministry of HRD for sending a reply directly to you.
In regard to his first appeal, FAA's order dated 13.03.2019 stated as follows:-
"............it is observed that Shri Sanjeev Shrivastva, Under Secretary & CPIO has given a reply vide letter of even number dated 8th March, 2019 informing that the information asked for is not available with him. However, as the 'matter relates to Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of EdCIL, Vigilance Section of MHRD may have examined the matter. Therefore, your RTI application was transferred to the CPIO & Under Secretary (Vigilance), Ministry of HRD for sending a reply directly to you
3. In view of the above, your First Appeal reference No. Nil dated 26th February, 2019 is also being transferred to the Under Secretary (Vigilance), Ministry of HRD for sending a reply directly to you."2
In compliance with FAA's order, CPIO, Vig. Section, DoHE furnished a reply to the complainant on 27.03.2019 stated as follows:-
"......2. The information requisitioned in sub para 1 & 2 in respect of letter Dy. No.3066/03Nig regarding CDA rules of EdCil is not available in record of Vigilance Section. With regard to information requisitioned in sub para 3 & 4, going through records of Vigilance Section since 2004 to till date to find a file containing requisitioned information if at all available would entail disproportionate effort on the part of CPIO. As such in the absence of specific file reference, the undersigned CPIO conveys inability to provide the information in terms of section 7(9) of RTI Act, 2005."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on the ground of misleading reply given by the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through intra video-conference. Respondent: Kirti, Deputy Director & CPIO present through intra video- conference.
The Complainant stated that the reply provided by the CPIO, Vigilance Section, MHRD against points no. 1 & 2 intimating the non-availability of records was false and misleading. Further, to substantiating his arguments, the Complainant invited attention of the bench towards two correspondences of MHRD to Ed.CIL as also of Ed.CIL to MHRD, Vigilance Section on the subject "Draft Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of Ed. CIL" and added that the MHRD as per the extant procedure has to mandatorily vet the averred rules , however in response to his RTI Application the CPIO has deliberately failed to clarify the factual vetting status.
The CPIO submitted that a factual reply has already been provided to the Complainant in terms of RTI Act. She further submitted that vetting of averred Rules has been done by the MHRD through diary number, hence no file records of such vetting against points no. 1 and 2 was available in their office and therefore the Complainant was informed accordingly.
Decision:3
The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the queries raised by the Complainant in the instant RTI application are rather speculative and in the nature of seeking clarifications/inferences which do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Yet, the CPIO in keeping with the spirit of RTI Act has provided a factual reply along with necessary clarifications during the hearing to assist the Complainant, merits of which cannot be called into question.
The Complainant 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.
His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Actin 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. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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 advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But 4 that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, no further action is warranted in the matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस"यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 5