Central Information Commission
Sachin Mittal vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 29 April, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागगं नाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/UTOCH/A/2021/606122 -UM
Mr. Sachin Mittal
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o Deputy Registrar
Panjab University Sector 14,
Chandigarh-160014
....प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.04.2022
Date of Decision : 29.04.2022
Date of RTI application 25.09.2020
CPIO's response 11.11.2020
Date of the First Appeal 06.11.2020
First Appellate Authority's response 24.12.2020
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information on 04 points, as under:- Page 1 of 3
The CPIO vide letter dated 11.11.2020, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 24.12.2020, also furnished a reply to the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: The appellant attended the hearing.
Respondent: The respondent Ms. Rinky, Sr. Assistant Colleges Branch attended the hearing.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and submitted that no response was furnished by the CPIO. The appellant stated that the information was wrongly denied stating untenable reasons which caused him a lot of humiliation and harassment. Further, the appellant informed that the FAA directed the CPIO to provide the information if the same has attained finality but till date no information has been provided by Punjab University Chandigarh on the matter though it is as old as the year 2018 as submitted in the RTI application. Moreover, in regard to point no. 04 of RTI he submitted that the proceedings of most of the syndicate meetings are available on the university website and a specific certified copy was requested but denied. He also stated that the information is required in order to protect the interest of his relative as her carrier is hampered because of the log pendency in the matter.
The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that a suitable response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the Appellant. He stated that the information sought by the applicant has yet not attained finality due to the lack of Governing Body of the University but now the same has been constituted in January 2022. Further, the respondent submitted that the matter relating to the information sought is required to be first considered by the Governing Body and said that after consideration the information will be provided to the Appellant. He also said that the information sought by other applicants on the same issue has also been replied to in a manner done in the case of the applicant. The Page 2 of 3 Respondent said that the matter related to CMJ University and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order in WA No. 14 of 2017 dated 01.06.2021 has maintained the status quo but the next date of hearing in the said matter is scheduled on 04.05.2022. Therefore, the matter is subjudice at the Supreme Court of India. The Governing Body has sought the latest position about the case before considering, he said.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission observes that a person who is under inquiry has a right to prove his innocence and therefore, he cannot be made to wait beyond a certain period for something, which will help him in proving his innocence. Moreover, the Commission also observes that the Delhi High Court in MCD vs. R.K. Jain, WP(C) No. 14120/2009, held that "the matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act." Hence, merely stating that a matter is sub-judice would not be a sufficient ground for withholding information under the RTI Act. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide correct and complete information to the appellant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सच ू ना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 ं / Date: 29.04.2022 द्वदनाक Page 3 of 3