Central Information Commission
Brutus vs Indian Institute Of Management Indore on 17 August, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/IIMIN/A/2022/642345
Brutus .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Indian Institute of Management-Indore
(Ministry of Education), Prabandh Shikhar,
Rau-Pithampur Road, Indore-453556
(Madhya Pradesh).
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.06.2022
CPIO replied on : 05.07.2022
First appeal filed on : 05.07.2022
First Appellate Authority order : 02.08.2022
Second Appeal received at CIC : 04.08.2022
Date of Hearing : 17.08.2023
Date of Decision : 17.08.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 05.07.2022, as under:
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 05.07.2022.
• The FAA vide order dated 02.08.2022 held as under:Page 2 of 6
• Written submission has been received from the CPIO vide letter dated 11.08.2023 as under :Page 3 of 6 Page 4 of 6
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Jainath Yadav, PIO, IIM-Indore.
The Appellant remained absent. It has come to the notice of the Commission that the hearing notice sent to the Appellant has been received back 'undelivered' with a postal remark 'the complete address of the addressee could not be traced out'. The hearing notice was sent on the address given in the Second Appeal and no other contact details is available in the file. The Appellant in his Second Appeal has stated that the requisite information has not been furnished to him till date.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that a point-wise reply has been furnished to the Appellant within stipulated time frame. He further stated that the IIM- Indore commenced special recruitment drives for faculty time to time and this is an on-going process. However, details of regular and contract faculty have been furnished. He further stated that IIM-Indore follows process of recruitment of the faculty as mentioned in the IIM Indore First Regulations approved by the Board of Governors of the Page 5 of 6 Institute. He averred that the Annual Reports of Institute is available on their official website and same is already in public domain.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent since only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seekers and giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 6 of 6