Central Information Commission
J Aggarwal vs Central University Of Punjab on 24 September, 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/CUOPJ/A/2018/118680/01718
File no.: CIC/CUOPJ/A/2018/118680
In the matter of:
J. Aggarwal
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
University Institute of Applied Management Sciences
Aruna Ranjit Chandra Hall, Nr. Post Office
Sector - 14, Punjab University, Chandigarh - 160 014
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 09/02/2017 CPIO replied on : 17/02/2017 First appeal filed on : 24/04/2017
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 19/03/2018 Date of Hearing : 24/09/2019 Date of Decision : 24/09/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Chief Coordinator and APIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the key (answer) of departmental exam of HPU, S.O-I held in August 2016 in respect of following subjects:- Book Keeping & Commercial Accounting, Civil Services Rules etc., Works & Store Accounts, Formulation of Budget etc. and Revenue Accounts etc. 1 Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted through his written statement that he is unable to attend the hearing and his case may be decided on merits. The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given on 17.02.2017. He further submitted that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had disposed of the first appeal on 07.09.2017.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record it is noted that an appropriate reply was given by the CPIO. It is further relevant to mention here that the respondent raised concern over the misuse of the RTI Act by the appellant, that he is running some tuition academy and wants to publish help books/guides for his personal use to mint money. A photocopy of the title page of such masterbook was also enclosed.
Decision:
It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The Commission finds it pertinent to rely on the following decisions:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] held that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication 2 File no.: CIC/CUOPJ/A/2018/118680 of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
The appellant should know that the RTI Act is a means to promote public interest and should not be used as an instrument to promote his business. In so far as the reply dated 17.02.2017 is concerned, there is no further action required.
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 3