Central Information Commission
Rechana Josy vs University Grants Commission on 29 October, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या /Complaint No.:- CIC/UGCOM/C/2017/150089-BJ
Ms. Rechana Josy
....अपीलकता
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
University Grants Commission
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110002
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.10.2018
Date of Decision : 29.10.2018
Date of RTI application 01.05.2017
CPIO's response Nil
Date of the First Appeal Nil
First Appellate Authority's response Nil
Date of diarized receipt of Complaint by the Commission 20.07.2017
ORDER
FACTS The Complainant vide her RTI application seeking details on 4 points regarding whether Mr. Vernin Joseph.V was a student of CMJ university, whether he had completed MSC.- Radiology and Imaging Technology from CMJ University in 2012, did he receive M.Sc degree certificate from the said university on 25.07.2016, whether his master's degree was a UGC approved regular course, etc Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response, the Complainant approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Mrs. Kundla Mahajan, US and Mr. Lokesh Kumar Jangra, SO;
The Complainant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Ems Varghese, Network Engineer NIC studio at Ernakulam confirmed the absence of the Complainant. In its reply, the Respondent explained that the RTI application had not been received by them. Consequent upon Page 1 of 3 issuance of notice by the Commission, they learnt about the subject matter and immediately transferred the query to CMJ University for further action.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 23.10.2018 wherein it was stated that the RTI application was not received by their office. However, the information sought was closely related to CMJ University hence the application was transferred to the said University on 23.10.2018.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(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 ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
Page 2 of 37. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Complainant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims regarding malafide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 29.10.2018
Page 3 of 3