Central Information Commission
Advocate Ms Shilpa vs Association Of Indian Universities on 24 January, 2022
CIC/ASINU/C/2021/660887
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईिद ी, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No. CIC/ASINU/C/2021/660887
In the matter of:
Advocate Ms Shilpa ... िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Association of Indian Universities,
AIU House 16, Comrade Indrajit
Gupta Marg (Kotla Marg),
Landmark: Opposite National Bal
Bhawan, Near I.T.O.,
New Delhi -110002
Relevant dates emerging from the Complaint:
RTI Application filed on : 21.07.2021
CPIO replied on : 19.08.2021
First Appeal filed on : 08.09.2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Complaint received on : 16.12.2021
Date of Hearing : 24.01.2022
The following were present:
Complainant: Ms Shilpa, participated in the hearing upon being contacted on his
telephone.
Respondent: Shri Gaurav Rai, Assistant and representative of Smt. Poonam
Mahajan, PIO/AIU and Sports Coordinator along with Dr. Baljit Singh Shekhon,
First Appellate Authority, participated in the hearing upon being contacted on their
respective telephones.
Page 1 of 9
CIC/ASINU/C/2021/660887
ORDER
Information Sought:
The Complainant filed RTI application dated 21.07.2021 seeking information on the following ten points:Page 2 of 9
CIC/ASINU/C/2021/660887
5. The Duly Acknowledged, Signed Drawsheet, Reporting Sheets, Fixtures and Score Cards of all the Matches starting from first Round Uptil the completion of selection Trail Procedure conducted by "AIU" for the Indian Lawn Tennis Team MEN & WOMEN, for the "WUG 2021".
Ms. Poonam Mahajan, Public Information Officer (YA&S), Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi vide letter dated 19.08.2021, informed to the Complainant as under:
Page 3 of 9CIC/ASINU/C/2021/660887 Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.09.2021, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority as per available records.
Grounds for Complaint:
The Complainant filed a Complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act on the ground of incomplete, misleading and false information provided by the Respondent. Complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO/SPIO to provide the information sought for free of cost and take appropriate legal action against the Respondent. Appellant also requested the bench to award Compensation.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing: In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, the instant hearing is being scheduled through audio conference after informing both the parties.
The Complainant stated that the Respondent has not provided the requisite information qua the instant RTI Application. Upon being queried by the Commission to elaborate the point of discontentment, she stated that she is not satisfied with the reply qua point nos. 6, 7 and 10 of the instant RTI Application.
The respondent submitted that they have provided a timely reply to the Complainant vide letter dated 19.08.2021. Upon being queried by the Commission whether the First Appeal has been adjudicated or not, the Respondent submitted that after obtaining the relevant information from the concerned university, they have provided some additional information to the Complainant on 12.01.2022 and further added that the information was delayed on account of the closure of the concerned university. The contents of the same are as under:Page 4 of 9
CIC/ASINU/C/2021/660887 He further added that with respect to point no. 6 and 7, the Complainant has the knowledge of top four lawn tennis players selected by the AIU. He furthermore submitted that with respect to point no. 10 of the RTI Application, no information is available on their record as it is under the prerogative of the concerned/organizing university.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Smt. Poonam Mahajan, PIO/AIU, vide letter dated 13.01.2022, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:Page 5 of 9
CIC/ASINU/C/2021/660887 Page 6 of 9 CIC/ASINU/C/2021/660887 Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the instant matter is a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause to the information seeker. The Commission further observes that the Respondent has provided appropriate reply as per available records to the Complainant; hence no malafide intention of the Respondent has been established.
The Commission relies on one judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr." bearing CIVIL APPEAL NOs.10787-10788 OF 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 has held as under:-
"Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden."
Thus, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.Page 7 of 9
CIC/ASINU/C/2021/660887 With the above observations, the Complaint is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The complaint, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
िदनांक / Date : 24.01.2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित)
B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26105027
Page 8 of 9
CIC/ASINU/C/2021/660887
Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA)
/Joint Secretary,
Association of Indian Universities,
AIU House 16, Comrade Indrajit Gupta Marg
(Kotla Marg), Landmark:
Opposite National Bal Bhawan,
Near I.T.O., New Delhi -110002
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Association of Indian Universities, AIU House 16, Comrade Indrajit Gupta Marg (Kotla Marg), Landmark:
Opposite National Bal Bhawan, Near I.T.O., New Delhi -110002
3. Advocate Ms Shilpa Page 9 of 9