Central Information Commission
Dharmesh M Patadiya vs University Grants Commission on 26 November, 2019
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/UGCOM/A/2018/134694/02032
File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/134694
In the matter of:
Dharmesh M Patadiya
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
University Grants Commission (UGC)
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002
&
Public Information Officer
Parul University, PO - Limda,
Tal - Waghodia, Dist - Vadodara - 391 760
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 29/11/2017 CPIO Replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 07/01/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 31/01/2018 Second Appeal dated : 23/03/2018 Date of Hearing : 14/11/2019 Date of Decision : 14/11/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Sh Pankaj Chandna, Assistant, Representative of the CPIO, present in person.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the copy of appointment letter, joining letter, details of salary of Dr. Bhavita K Malvi, working as faculty at Parul Institute of 1 Homoeopathy and research, PO Limda, Taluko Waghodia-391760, District- Vadodara.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that till date the desired information was not provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that since the requisite information pertained to the Parul University, the RTI application was transferred to them on 16.01.2018 to provide a reply directly to the appellant. However, till date no response has been provided by the University. He further submitted that Parul University is not a public Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
At this point, the appellant raised an objection and submitted that even though Parul University is not covered u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act, it is bound to provide the information based on the order of the CIC passed in File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/0006S8/SA) on 29 May 2014, wherein it was held as under:
"The Jindal Public School, whether it is a public authority or private body' has a duty under sections 4 and I of Delhi Education Act 1973, to abide by the regulatory conditions of service, payment of salaries as prescribed, etc for which this school has to maintain the records, which provide an inherent and implied right to information to their employees. If the appellant in her capacity as an ex-employee of the school has right to information under any legislation such as Delhi Education Act, that will fall under the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act which gives the PIO, Appellate authority and the Information Commissioner, power to enforce its right to information. Hence, the school is directed to discharge their obligation under law by furnishing the information sought by the appellant to the respondent authority, who in turn is directed to provide the name to the appellant within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.' He further submitted that the information cannot be denied to him being a third party information as he is the husband of Dr Bhavita regarding whom he 2 File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/134694 is seeking information. To substantiate his submission, he quoted two CIC orders as under:
In the case of Ms Juhi Jadli vs IT Department Noida File No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000038/LS dated 03.06.2013 it was held:
"It appears to me that there is estrangement between the husband and the wife. 'The wives generally try to collect this information for canvassing their cases in the Family Courts for grant of maintenance. A wife cannot be treated as third Party in the strict sense of the term, so long as the marriage subsists. However, after divorce, the legal position changes. I am told that marriage still subsists between the appellant and Shri Shobhit Garg. Hence, it will not be correct to deny information on the ground that the appellant is a third party. In the given facts, I order that gross income and net taxable income declared by Shri Shobhit Garg in the last ITR filed by him, may be disclosed to the appellant".
In another case of Mr Vijit Murarka vs CPIO IT officer File No. ClC/BS/A/2016/000493-BJ dated 27.07.2017, it was held as under:
"on humanitarian ground and in the interest of natural justice income details of appellant's wife to be provided."
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of the case records, it is noted that in the present case there are two issues for determination. Firstly, whether the information can be sought from a private University which is not covered u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act and secondly whether the appellant being the husband of the third party namely Dr Bhavita is entitled to get the information related to his wife.
With regard to the issue of seeking information about a private University which is not under the purview of the RTI Act, the Commission finds it appropriate to refer to the definition of Information as per Section 2(f) which includes within the purview of the Act, the information relating to any private body that can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.3
In this regard, the Commission relies on the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Thalappam Ser. Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9017 of 2013 dated 07.10.2103, wherein in para 52 it was stated:
Information which he is expected to provide is the information enumerated in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act subject to the limitations provided under Section 8 of the Act. Registrar can also, to the extent law permits, gather information from a Society, on which he has supervisory or administrative control under the Cooperative Societies Act. Consequently, apart from the information as is available to him, under Section 2(f), he can also gather those information from the Society, to the extent permitted by law.
A reference can also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors., dated 16.12.2015, wherein interpreting section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, the following was held in para 67 "From reading of the above section it can be inferred that the Legislature's intent was to make available to the general public such information which had been obtained by the public authorities from the private body. Had it been the case where only information related to public authorities was to be provided, the Legislature would not have included the word "private body".
In this context, the Commission draws reference to the observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7265 OF 2007 (Date of Decision : 25th September, 2009) wherein the Court has clarified the definition of "information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act,2005 and held as under:
8. "Information as defined in Section 2(f) means details or material available with the public authority. The later portion of Section 2(f) expands the definition to include details or material which can be accessed under any other law from others. The two definitions have to be read harmoniously. The term ―held by or under the control of any public authority in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act has to be read in a manner that it effectuates and is in harmony with the definition of the term 4 File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/134694 ―informa:on as defined in Section 2(f). The said expression used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act should not be read in a manner that it negates or nullifies defini:on of the term ―informa:on in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is well settled that an interpretation which renders another provision or part thereof redundant or superfluous should be avoided.
Information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information relating to any private body which can be accessed by public authority under any law for the time being in force. Therefore, if a public authority has a right and is entitled to access information from a private body, under any other law, it is ―informa:on as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The term ―held by the or under the control of the public authority used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act will include information which the public authority is entitled to access under any other law from a private body.
13. Information available with the public authority falls within section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The last part of section 2 (f) broadens the scope of the term information' to include information which is not available, but can be accessed by the public authority from a private authority. Such information relating to a private body should be accessible to the public authority under any other law. Therefore, section 2(f) of the RTI Act requires examination of the relevant statute or law, as broadly understood, under which a public authority can access information from a private body. If law or statute permits and allows the public authority to access the information relating to a private body, it will fall within the four corners of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act."
It is also not a question of contention that the UGC possesses regulatory powers over Private Universities.
In this context the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of WP (C) No. 12388/2018 and CAV 1056/2018 and CM Appls 48059 dated 20.11.2018 can be cited wherein it was held as under:
"14. Thus, it is settled that an interpretation which renders another provision or part thereof redundant or superfluous should be avoided. Information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information relating to any private body which can be assessed by public authority under any law for the time being inforce. Therefore, if a public authority has a right and is entitled to access information from a private body, under any other law, it is „information‟ as defined in Section 5 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Thus, it is obligation on the public authority to get the information from the private body and furnish the same to the applicant.
15. Under Section 12 of the TRI Act, 1997, the petitioners has power to call for any information, conduct investigations, etc., where, the authority considers it expedient so to do, it may by order in writing. It cannot be said that the petitioner has no power to call information from the private body i.e. Vodafone India. Admittedly, the petitioner authority is regulating the services in India.
16. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has sought information from the Vodafone Authority which was denied on the ground that it is a private body and it does not come under the purview of RTI Act, 2005, thus, the respondent/applicant cannot be left remediless in view of the powers of the petitioner.
17. Since the service provider i.e. Vodafone has not furnished the information sought by the respondent, then the said respondent approached the TRAI for the said purpose. Though, it is the case of the petitioner that the information sought by the respondent in his RTI application is not available in their record, therefore the respondent can seek the information from the service provider under Regulations, 2012 and the same may be furnished to the respondent, but I find no substance in the submissions of the petitioner."
Keeping in view the various court decisions as mentioned above, the contention of the appellant that even if Parul University is a Private University not covered u/s 2((h) of the RTI Act, they are bound to provide information to UGC is correct.
With regard to another issue as to whether the appellant is entitled to get the information related to his wife or not, the Commission does not concur with the view taken by the appellant as the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application is purely in the nature of personal information which is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the reason why the quoted decisions relied upon by the appellant are not applicable in this case is that the appellant was unable to demonstrate any larger public interest. Here, it is pertinent to mention that the Commission cannot be a forum to decide who is right or wrong and is purely the custodian of the transparency legislation.
6File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/134694 The Commission would also like to quote an observation made by the Commission in the case of Vijay Prakash Vs PIO, Air Force, dated 17.12.2008 reproduced as under:
"During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that the information sought was required for producing before the Competent Court where a dispute was pending between him and Dr. Sandhya Verma and the information was necessary for fair trial. The Respondents submitted that the information was necessary pertained to personal information concerning Dr. Sandhya Verma, a Third Party and had no relationship to any public interest or activity and, therefore, exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. The information which has been sought includes, attested copies of all the leave application forms submitted by Dr. S. Verma since she was posted to 4 AFSB, copies of nomination of DSOP/other official documents with financial implications and record of investment made and reflected thereon in service documents along with the nominations thereof, if explicitly made. The information sought is obviously personal information concerning Dr. SandhyaVerma, a Third Party. It is immaterial if Dr. Sandhya Verma happens to be the wife of the Appellant. The information sought does not seem to have any relationship to any public interest or public activity and has been expressly sought to be used as evidence in a dispute in a Court pending between the Appellant and Dr. Sandhya Verma. The decision of the CPIO, upheld by the Appellate Authority, in denying the information by invoking the exemption provision of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act seem to be absolutely right and just. We find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Appellate Authority and, thus, reject the appeal."
The Hon'ble Delhi high Court in W.P. (C) 803/2009 in the matter of Ved Prakash Vs UOI and Ors has also upheld the above mentioned CIC Order while making the following observation:
As discussed earlier, the "public interest" argument of the Petitioner is premised on the plea that his wife is a public servant; he is in litigation with her, and requires information, - in the course of a private dispute - to establish the truth of his allegations. The CIC has held that there is no 7 public interest element in the disclosure of such personal information, in the possession of the information provider, i.e. the Indian Air Force. This court concurs with the view, on an application of the principles discussed. The petitioner has, not been able to justify how such disclosure would be in "public interest" : the litigation is, pure and simple, a private one. The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed.
Decision:
In view of the various citations quoted above and relied upon by the Commission, the Commission while upholding the fact that the UGC can through assistance obtain information from the institute, however, in this case it is seen that what has been sought is information on the employment details of Ms. Bhavita which stands exempt under Sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, being purely personal in nature. Thus, no relief can be granted to the appellant in this case.
The appeal 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 8