Central Information Commission
Vishwas Bhamburkar vs All India Council For Technical ... on 2 April, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सूचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगानाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका, नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/AICTE/C/2017/171555/00346
File no.: CIC/AICTE/C/2017/171555
In the matter of:
Vishwas Bhamburkar
...Complainant
VS
Central Public Information Officer/ Asst. Director
AICTE HQ Buidling, JNU Campus,
Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi - 110 067
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 18/09/2017 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : Not on record First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Complaint dated : 11/10/2017 Date of Hearing : 01/04/2019 Date of Decision : 01/04/2019 The following were present: Complainant: Present
Respondent: Shri Jag Mohan Sharma, Representative of the CPIO. Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information from 20.11.2015 till the date of any reply from the CPIO:
(a) Whether the students of Apollo College of Engineering, Ahmedabad have been accommodated in other colleges before the said college was closed.1
(b) If yes, details of the colleges where the said students were accommodated and the number of students accommodated in each college may be provided.
(c)If no, provide the rule under which a college can be closed down without the students having been accommodated in any college.
(d)Provide the names, designations and all contact details such as address, phone number, mobile number and email IDs of all persons from your organization who were/are involved in the closing down of Apollo College of Engineering, Ahmedabad.
Grounds for Complaint:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Complainant submitted that the response of the CPIO in rejecting his RTI application on the pretext that the IPO was not properly addressed, directing him to send the application fee in favour of the Member Secretary, AICTE was totally wrong and against the spirit of the RTI Act. He further submitted he has, in the course of his social activism, filed a plethora of RTI applications with AICTE with all the IPOs drawn in favour of "Accounts Officer, All India Council for Technical Education. However, none of these applications had been rejected.
To substantiate his contentions, he relied on the Commission's order passed in the case of Sucheta Suresh kumar Panicker v. PIO'EPFO, Mumbai, File No CIC/BS/C/2016/000180 dated 05.04.2017, In which following observation has been made, "The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2012 prescribed under Rule 6(b) states that fee may be paid by appellant in the form of IPO payable to Accounts Officer of the Public Authority." In para 5 of the same decision, it has been stated that, "5. In light of above, it is not proper on part of Mr. Raju Kumar to reject RTI application on the ground that name of the addressee for IPO was not correct. Besides rejecting the PIO spent around Rs. 100/- Rupees in demanding another IPO in name of correct addressee. In fact the appellant has already poid Rs. l0/- to Govt. Of India when he purchased the IPO. Both common sense and prudence does not justify spending Rs.
100/- asking for Rs. 10/-. If PIO had furnished information and along with that had he asked for properly addressed IPO, there could have been justification for spending Rs. 100/-. The Commission records its 2 File no.: CIC/AICTE/C/2017/171555 admonition against the CPIO for such rejection and warns the public authority not to reject RTI applications in this manner. The Commission finds Mr. Raju Kumar accountable for wasting more than Rs. 100/- for rejecting the RTI application."
Furthermore, the Commission in its earlier order dated 27.12.2016 in decision no. CIC/S NC/20161000234 & CIC/SA /Cl20l6/000235 in the matter of Mohd. Irsad vs. PIO, Delhi University held that:
"The CPIO has every authority to collect the fee prescribed. But when IPO indicates that Rs 10 paid to Government of India, the RTI application cannot be considered as 'without payment' and be rejected. Even non- payment of fee was not prescribed as a ground for rejection of RTI application. Only grounds for rejection are specifically provided under section I and 9. Reading Section 6 and 7 together and understanding spirit of RTI Act as a whole should make CPIO to act reasonably and provide information rather than searching for excuses to reject. Expression "on payment of such fee" means both fee of Rs I0 and further fee representing cost of copying. For that the CPIO has to accept and study the RTI Application, get ready to give the information sought, to not exempted, and seek payment of cost of copying and on receipt of additional fee, if needed, and then the information need to be provided. The CPIOs action of rejection resulted in denial of RTI and harassment of applicant.
The Commission finds that the rejections of RTI applications by CPIO reminds the saying 'penny wise pound foolish', the rejection of RTI application of the complainant is against the Right to Information Act, rules and OM of DoPT, their institutional rules of procedure, even if existed with any authority, is not valid to the extent of its contradiction to RTI Act and Rules. The explanation of the CPIO confirms the fact of rejection and totally fails to present any merit or justification. Thus it is apparent denial of information and that too without any reasonable cause on part of CPIO".
He concluded his submissions stating that a fine may be imposed on the concerned CPIO for such flagrant violations of the RTI Act.
The representative of the CPIO submitted that initially the RTI application was returned to the complainant as the IPO attached with the RTI application was not properly addressed and the complainant was directed to re-submitt his RTI application with the IPO drawn in favour of the Member Secretary, AICTE. However, the complainant did not respond nor submitted the RTI application 3 again. He further submitted that complete information has been provided to the complainant vide letter dated 18.02.2019. He handed over a copy of the reply dated 18.02.2019 to the Commission for perusal and record.
The complainant submitted that he has not received any reply from the respondent authority.
Observation:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and considering the submissions put forth by both the parties during the hearing, it is noted that the CPIO's action of returning the RTI application stating that the IPO was not properly drawn was not proper. This rejection on his part clearly amounted to denial of information under the RTI Act. It is also not a case that the complainant did not pay any fee. The bona fides of the complainant are established by his payment towards the Accounts Officer, and the intentions of the PIO and public authority are not at all bona fide.
At this point, the Commission draws attention to an observation made by this Commission in the case of R. K. Jain v. CPIO, Delhi University, CIC/RM/C/2014/000138-SA. The relevant portion is extracted below:
"The CPIO has every authority to collect the fee prescribed. But when IPO indicates that Rs 10 paid to Government of India, the RTI application cannot be considered as without payment. Even non-payment of fee cannot be a ground for rejection of RTI application. Only grounds for rejection are specifically provided under section 8 and 9. Reading Section 6 and 7 together and understanding spirit of RTI Act as a whole should make CPIO to act reasonably and provide information rather than searching for excuses to reject. Expression "on payment of such fee" means both fee of Rs 10 and further fee representing cost of copying. For that the CPIO has to accept and study the RTI Application, get ready to give the information sought, if not exempted, and seek payment of cost of copying and on receipt of additional fee, if needed, and then the information need to be provided. What is the significance of fee of 'Rs. 10'? Does it represent the value of the information, cost of its searching, labour charge for preparing the information or consideration for it? No. The decision of CPIO to return the entire application lock stock and barrel on the excuse that addressee space was left blank is without any legal base and totally unjustifiable. He refused application at threshold and was not inclined to arrange 4 File no.: CIC/AICTE/C/2017/171555 information. The mandatory 30 day limit is dismissed by this action. If CPIO has any issues with realization of that fee for his authority, he has every chance of addressing those issues. By returning application along with IPO he has closed all those chances."
However, considering the fact that a point-wise reply has been provided to the appellant on 18.02.2019, the Commission is taking a lenient view in the matter. The Commission records its admonition against the CPIO for such rejection and warns the public authority not to reject RTI applications in this manner.
Decision:
The CPIO is directed to resend the reply dated 18.02.2019 by speed post to the appellant, free of cost within 03 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
A strict warning is also issued to the concerned CPIO, Ms Ruchika Kem, Assistant Director for such blatant violation of the RTI Act. She should note that such kind of act amounts to denial of information which violates the letter and spirit of the RTI Act. In case such a mistake is repeated in future by her, the Commission will be constrained to initiate penal proceedings u/s 20 of the RTI Act .
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 5