Central Information Commission
Mohit Kumar Gupta vs Institute Of Chartered Accoutant Of ... on 17 January, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: -CIC/ICAOI/C/2018/629437/02641
File no.: - CIC/ICAOI/C/2018/629437
In the matter of:
Mohit Kumar Gupta
... Complainant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India,
ICAI Bhawan, Indraprastha Marg, New Delhi-110002
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 16/12/2017 CPIO replied on : 16/01/2018 First appeal filed on : 17/03/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 17/04/2018 Complaint filed on : 24/08/2018 Date of Hearing : 16/01/2020 Date of Decision : 16/01/2020 The following were present: Complainant: Not present
Respondent: Shri Dinesh Kumar Mishra , Assistant Secretary and CPIO, present in person Information Sought:
The complainant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the number of CA students who have registered and de-
registered/lapsed registration in the year from 2005 to 2017 (category and year wise details be provided) for the following courses: B.Com, BBA, M.Com and MBA programmes of Bharathiar University under MOU with ICAI; B.Com and M.Com programmes of IGNOU under MOU with ICAI.
12. Provide the number of CA students who have applied for examinations (details of the candidates who filled the examination forms) in the year 2005 to 2017 (category and year wise details be provided) for the following courses: B.Com, BBA, M.Com and MBA programmes of Bharathiar University under MOU with ICAI; B.Com and M.Com programmes of IGNOU under MOU with ICAI.
3. Provide the number of CA students who have passed examinations (alongwith passing percentage) in each 2005 to 2017 (category and year wise details be provided) for the following courses: B.Com, BBA, M.Com and MBA Programmes of Bharathiar University under MOU with ICAI; B.Com and M.Com programmes of IGNOU under MOU with ICAI.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Complaint The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
The complainant sent an e-mail on 16.01.2020 at 10.22 am and sought for an adjournment of the case. However, the contents of the e-mail, is quite incomprehensible except for the fact that he is seeking an adjournment. The Commission is however not inclined to adjourn the case due to paucity of time and as no other case could be fixed for hearing in such short notice. In the light of the huge pendency of second appeals and complaints in the Commission it would not be prudent to adjourn the case at the last minute. Moreover, the complainant had also not attached any supporting medical documents to show that there is any kind of medical emergency. Hence, the Commission is constrained to adjudicate the matter on merits more so as the case has already been decided in second appeal.
The CPIO submitted that the identical RTI application dated 16.12.2017 was heard by the Commission on 10.06.2019 in case no. CIC/ICAOI/A/2018/629505 and following order was passed:
"The Commission notes that the manner of dismissal of the first appeal by the FAA without granting an opportunity for personal hearing after the appellant has specifically asked for a hearing goes against the principles of natural justice. The FAA in this case without hearing the appellant concluded that the case needs to be dismissed being time 2 File no.: - CIC/ICAOI/C/2018/629437 barred, without providing an ample opportunity to the appellant to justify the delay in filing the appeal and this reflects unreasonable handling of the first appeal, driving the appellant to file Second Appeal. Therefore, the Commission advices the First Appellate Authority not to repeat this practice of not hearing the appellant when a hearing is specifically sought .Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the observations and decisions cited above, the Commission remands the matter to the FAA, Mrs. Seema Gerotra to re-examine the RTI application/ First Appeal and pass a reasoned decision after hearing both the parties, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The appellant is at liberty to approach the Commission by way of a fresh Second Appeal with regard to the above mentioned RTI application in case such need arises."
He further submitted that in compliance with the above order, the FAA conducted the hearing of the first appeal afresh on 08.07.2019. The FAA gave direction in respect of points no. 1, 2, 3,9 10 and 11 of the RTI application, to forward the RTI application of the appellant to the concerned public authority (ies) u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act within 15 days from the date of this order. As regards, the information sought by the appellant vide point nos. 4 & 12; the FAA concur with the reply of the respondent, in regard to point no. 13 the CPIO was directed to provide the information in relation of CA journal as well within 30 days from the date of the order.
He further submitted that in compliance with the above order a revised reply was sent to the complainant on 06.08.2019 covering the relevant points.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the following reply was given vide letter dated 06.08.2019:
"In point no.13 you had asked the procedure for sending and getting the paper published in CA and CA student's Journal, in this regard, the details are enclosed as Annexure 'A'."
The complainant had not filed any objection to the reply dated 06.08.2019 to the Commission and hence it appears that the complainant is satisfied with the reply. Moreover, the complainant was at liberty to approach the Commission by way of a fresh Second Appeal with regard to the above mentioned RTI 3 application in case such need arose as per the observations of the Commission in order dated 10.06.2019 in case no. CIC/ICAOI/A/2018/629505. Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no ground to admit this complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act. The matter was thoroughly examined by the FAA and an apt order was passed. Hence, no further intervention is required in this case.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4