Central Information Commission
Tabrez Ahmad vs Indian Institute Of Technology, Kanpur on 14 December, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/IITKP/A/2020/128910
Tabrez Ahmad ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Institute of Technology
Kanpur, Post office IIT Kanpur,
Uttar Pradesh - 208016. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/12/2021
Date of Decision : 06/12/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07/10/2019
CPIO replied on : 06/11/2019
First appeal filed on : 07/11/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 09/12/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21/09/2020
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.10.2019 seeking the following information;
1- "Copy of the anonymous complaint sent by a student in 2018 alleging plagiarism in the Ph.D thesis of Roll no 10101064.1
2- Copy of all attachments accompanying the anonymous complaint sent by a student in 2018 alleging plagiarism in the Ph.D thesis of Roll no 10101064.
3- Copy of the final report of the Academic Ethics Cell in the case of alleged plagiarism in the Ph.D thesis of Roll no 10101064. 4- Copy of the final report of the SPGC in the case of alleged plagiarism in the Ph.D thesis of Roll no 10101064.
5- Copy of the material in the Ph.D thesis found to be plagiarized by the SPGC.
6- Copy of the members of the AEC who participated in the SPGC meeting that deliberated upon the case of alleged plagiarism in the Ph.D thesis of Roll no 10101064.
7- Copy of the final minutes of the Senate in the case of alleged plagiarism in the Ph.D thesis of Roll no 10101064.
8- Copy of the members of the AEC who participated in the Senate meeting that deliberated upon the case of alleged plagiarism in the Ph.D thesis of Roll no 10101064.
9- Copy of the final report of the External committee set up by the Board of Governors in the case of alleged plagiarism in the Ph.D thesis of Roll no 10101064.
10- Copy of the Office Order to set up an External committee to investigate the case of alleged plagiarism in the Ph.D thesis of Roll no 10101064. 11- Copy of the remuneration, if any, paid to the External committee set up by the Board of Governors to investigate the case of alleged plagiarism in the Ph.D thesis of Roll no 10101064.
12- Copy of the expenditure, if any, such as travel of committee members, incurred to facilitate the functioning of the External committee set up by the Board of Governors to investigate the case of alleged plagiarism in the Ph.D thesis of Roll no 10101064.
13- Copy of the plagiarism software check (Turnitin or any other) run by the Academic Ethics Cell on the Ph.D thesis of Roll no 10101064. 14- Copy of the material in the Ph.D thesis found to be common knowledge and identical to earlier thesis as mentioned in the Press release by the External Committee formed by the Board of Governors. If the identity of individuals needs to be preserved, please anonymise the same, that is either blacken the identity or remove it."2
The CPIO intimated the appellant on 06.11.2019 that on scrutiny of appellant's application, it is found that, he has wrongly mentioned about depositing an amount of Rs. 200/- xxxx towards photocopy charges, which in fact , was nowhere enclosed along with the RTI application. Further, the information sought by him is awaited from the concerned departments and will be provide as soon as received.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.11.2019. FAA's order dated 09.12.2019 furnished a point wise reply to the appellant.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of denial of information against points no. 6 &8; and also the information provided by the CPIO at points no. 9-12 was false/incorrect.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Manoj Kumar, Assistant Registrar & CPIO present through video- conference.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 03.12.2021 as under -
"1. It is apprised that the Appellant had sought information vide RTI application dated Nil, regarding complaint of plagiarism in the Ph.D thesis of Roll No. 10101064 by student in IIT Kanpur in Oct. 2018 etc. In this regard, an interim reply was sent by the CPIO vide letter dated 06.11.2019, through which it was informed the appellant that for having wrongly mentioned of depositing amount Rs. 200/- towards the photocopy charge, which was not found enclosed with RTI application. Further, it was also intimated that sought information is awaited from the concerned departments and will be provided as soon as received.
2. Continuation to the above, the appellant without waiting a single day submitted 1st appeal dated 07.11.2019 which was received on 11.11.20219 in the office of First Appellate Authority (FAA), IIT Kanpur. In this regard, the information was provided with Annexure 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 to the information seeker by the FAA vide letter No. IITK/RTI/AA/2019/46 dated 09.12.2019 as per the RTI Act and requested to deposit photocopy charges of Rs. 114/- (Rs.3
2/- per page after adjusting Rs. 30/- for which IPO was sent) for obtaining the required information as sought under point No. 02, but till date no photocopy charges have been received from the appellant. In different appeals he mentioned of depositing money which was a false claim.
3. Subsequently the appellant filed 2nd Appeal in State Information Commission (SIC) U.P, instead of Central Information Commission for which the hearing was held on 03.08.2021. The said hearing was attended in person by the undersigned as a CP10 wherein appellant was not present.
4. The appellant had filled 07 RTI application and their appeals without properly mentioning the reason of appeal and the covering letter attached with all these appeals were identical with established that there is no public in his RTI and Appeals interest in his RTI & Appeals rather some vested interest leading to waste of time energy and resources of the Respondent of IIT Kanpur.
5. That, being not depositing photocopy charges for the obtaining required information, Shri Tabrez Ahmad (Appellant) has submitted 2nd Appeal in CIC and alleged that the CPIO has not given any reply to his RTI application and FAA had also denied information for some points by applying certain section of RTI Act, which is totally untrue as the reply was sent by CPIO vide aforesaid letter dated 06.11.2019. Further, the FAA had also provided the information as per the RTI Act, 2005.
6. From the above, it is evident that appellant is asking identical information through different RTI applications and also falsely made averment for having paid the requisite fee meant for photocopy. The appellant has also made several hypothetical statement for administrative decisions which was not in order. His RTI applications are not having larger public interest and it is a tool of defaming the Institute of National Importance."
Decision:
The Commission at the outset upon a close scrutiny of the contents of RTI Application observes that the information sought by the Appellant is largely in the form of either vague queries which do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act and/or pertained to Ph.D. thesis records of a third party, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
Nonetheless, it is also pertinent to note that the reply of CPIO is also not very cogent and fails to comply with the provisions of RTI Act. In view of this, the CPIO is hereby directed firstly to provide a copy of his written submission dated 4 03.12.2021 along with a revised point wise categorical reply intimating the Appellant that information sought do not conform to Section 2(f) and/ or exempted from disclosure in view of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, wherever applicable.
The aforesaid reply and information shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant through speed post and via email within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5