Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rupal Mathur vs University Grants Commission on 16 March, 2021

Author: Saroj Punhani

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                                   के   ीयसूचनाआयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                               बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                            नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No : CIC/UGCOM/A/2019/125360

Rupal Mathur                                                    अपीलकता /Appellant
                                                            ......अपीलकता 


                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम

CPIO
University Grants Commission,
RTI Cell, Central Region Office,
Tawa Complex (Bittan Market),
E-5, Arera Colony, Bhopal-462016, MP.

CPIO,
University Grants Commission,
RTI Cell, Bahadur shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-110002                                       .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)


Date of Hearing                    :   16/03/2021
Date of Decision                   :   16/03/2021

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :             Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on           :   01/01/2019
CPIO replied on                    :   21/01/2019 {RTI Transfer U/S 6(3)}
First appeal filed on              :   18/02/2019


                                          1
 First Appellate Authority order   :   NA
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   18/05/2019

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 01.01.2019 seeking information regarding Bachelor of Computer Application (B.C.A.) course;

The CPIO/US, UGC, New Delhi on 14.01.2019 directed Respondent No.1 to take appropriate action in the matter and send a suitable reply directly to the appellant.

Respondent No.1 transferred the RTI application on 21.01.2019 under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the concerned college for providing information.

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.02.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent No.1: Prashant Dwivedi, Education Officer & CPIO present through audio conference.

Respondent No.2: Not present.

Respondent No.1 submitted that upon receipt of the instant RTI Application from UGC, New Delhi, it was transferred to the concerned college i.e Lachoo Memorial College, Jodhpur for providing the information to the Appellant.

Upon a query from the Commission, Respondent No.1 clarified that he is not completely aware about the grants-in-aid received by the averred college but stated that as per his knowledge no grants have been provided to the college since 2013 by UGC. He further agreed to procure the available information from the college and provide it to the Appellant.

Decision The Commission observes from a perusal of the facts on record as well as the proceedings during the hearing that the transfer of the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act by Respondent No.1 to the averred college without ascertaining the status of the said college vis-à-vis Section 2(h) of the RTI Act was not appropriate.

Further, in the instant case, the status of Lachoo Memorial College, Jodhpur being a public authority or not under the RTI Act is not the question for determination as the RTI Application was filed with a public authority. Here, it is relevant to bring out the provisions of Section 2(j) and 2(f) of the RTI Act which clearly stipulates that:

Section 2(j)- "...."right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to--..........."

Section 2(f)- "...."information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force..."

Upon a conjoint reading of the two Sections, it becomes essentially clear that the RTI Application of the Appellant has to be construed in the spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Act. It is emphasized therefore that the Appellant has sought for the information from a public authority and not from the averred college.

Now, in the interest of justice and in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, the Commission directs Respondent No.1 to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide the information as sought for therein to the Appellant, free of cost, if the same is available with UGC or if this information can be accessed from the averred college. In the event that the said information is not available with UGC or it cannot be accessed from the college, a categorical statement to this effect should be stated in the CPIO's reply. The said directions should be complied with by Respondent No.1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

सरोजपुनहािन) Saroj Punhani (सरोजपु हािन सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4