Central Information Commission
Harpal Singh vs Niper Ahmedabad on 9 December, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal/ िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.
CIC/NIPAH/A/2020/669585 & CIC/NIPAH/C/2020/669583
Mr. Harpal Singh ... अपीलकता /Appellant
...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
National Institute of Pharmaceutical
Education and Research, Ahmedabad
Opp. Air Forces Station, Palaj,
Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat-382355
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal/ Complaint:-
RTI : 22-01-2020 FA : 23-02-2020 SA : 07-05-2020
CPIO : Not on Records FAO : Not on Records Hearing : 07-12-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant/ complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research Ahmedabad, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat. The appellant/ complainant seeking information on five points, including inter-alia as under:-
"1. Whether below mentioned contractual employees of NIPER-A (presently working in administration section) have applied for various advertised posts. Furnish the category wise information of applied post and name of contractual employee applied for concerned post.
i. Ms. Shweta Pardal, PA to Director
ii. Mr. Kunal Maheshwari, Assistant Registrar
iii. Mr. Sujeet Pathak, Assistant Grade-II
iv. Ms. Shilpi Sen, Assistant Grade-II
v. Ms. Vakta Parth Belani, Office Assistant
vi. Mr. Preet Goswami, Office Assistant
Page 1 of 4
vii. Mr. Prakash Ravi Das, Junior Assistant (Store)
2. This information is being sought just want to know that there will be 100% transparency in selection process because currently there are many contractual employees working also and they may be selected through such direct recruitment notification and then due to one or another reason, these cases goes to any court /tribunal and become unnecessary delays". Etc
2. Dissatisfied due to non- receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the appellant/ complainant has file first appeal dated 23-02-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The order of the FAA if any is not on record with the Commission. Thereafter the appellant/ complainant has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information and a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The appellant/ complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Kunal Maheshwari, Asst Registrar/ CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 30.11.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant/ complainant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 22.01.2020 and pleaded that appropriate action be taken against them.
6. The respondent submitted that during 2020, due to Covid-19 outbreak, none of the staff members was able to access the RTI MIS Portal. The Institute didn't get any information due to above reason on pending RTI and only came to know about this when an email was received from the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Govt of India, New Delhi for reply of pending RTI applications. As soon as the email was received from DoP, they took an immediate action and accessed the RTI Online Portal in the month of May 2020 and a due reply has been furnished to the appellant/ complainant vide letter dated 13.05.2020.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant/ complainant is seeking clarification/explanation/confirmation from the CPIO. But the CPIO is not Page 2 of 4 supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to compile information as per the desire of the appellant/ complainant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant/ complainant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. Nonetheless, the respondent has furnished the information to the appellant/ complainant as sought by him vide their reply dated 13.05.2020, beyond the scope of RTI Act, 2005.
8. In view of the above the Commission therefore finds that with regards to the second appeal no. CIC/NIPAH/A/2020/669585, the reply furnished by the respondent vide letter dated 13.05.2020 is satisfactory. Further with regards to complaint no. CIC/NIPAH/C/2020/669583, the Commission finds that the reason submitted by the respondent vide their written submissions dated 30.11.2021 for the delay caused in furnishing the initial reply is reasonably satisfactory and hence there is no sufficient ground to take action against the respondent under Section 18/ 20 of the RTI Act.
9. With the above observations, both the appeal and the complaint are disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 07-12-2021
Page 3 of 4
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
National Institute of Pharmaceutical
Education and Research Ahmedabad
Opp. Air Forces Station, Palaj,
Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat-382355
2. Mr. Harpal Singh
Page 4 of 4