Central Information Commission
Mr. Hari Om Gupta vs I.A.S.E. University on 4 March, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000193/3144penalty/Adjunct
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000193
Show Cause Hearing:
Complainant : Mr. Hari Om Gupta,
E-3593, Jain Street No.2,
Fazilkla, Dist:Ferozepore
Punjab, 152 123
Respondent : Public Information Officer,
Registrar,
I.A.S.E. University, Ghandhi Vidya Mandir
Sardar Sahar, Rajasthan - 331 401
Background:
Mr. Hari Om Gupta had filed a RTI application with the PIO, Director/ Registrar (Examination), I.A.S.E. University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir on 30/09/2008 asking for certain information. Since no reply was received within the mandated time of 30 days, he had filed a complaint under Section 18 to the Commission. The Commission issued a notice to the PIO on 23/03/2009 asking him to supply the information and sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The Commission had neither received a copy of the information sent to the complainant, nor did it receive any explanation from the PIO for not supplying the information to the complainant.
Commission's Order dated 08/05/2009:
The Complaint was allowed. The PIO was directed to give complete information to the complainant before May 20, 2009. The Commission further observed that the PIO's action clearly amounted to denial of information without any reasons. The PIO was therefore, asked to submit a written explanation to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action be recommended against him under Section 20 (1) & (2) of the RTI Act before May 25, 2009.
Brief Facts leading to the Show cause hearing:
The Commission had received a letter dated 31/05/2009 from the Complainant stating that he had received incomplete information from Dr. R.S Tripathi, Registrar, IASE University. Based on this a second show cause notice was issued to the Respondent to appear before the Assistant Registrar and Designated Officer on 17/07/2009 and submit his written submissions and to send the information to the Complainant before 12/07/2009. The Respondent did not appear on that day and the Commission did not receive any written submissions. The Commission received another letter dated 13/07/2009 from the Complainant stating that he has not received complete information till date. Based on this, the Commission issued the third show cause notice and asked the Respondent to be present before the Commission on 24/08/2009 along with written submissions.Page 1 of 3
Relevant Facts that emerged during the Show Cause Hearing on 24/08/2009: "The following were present:
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Shoaib Hasan, lawyer for the Respondent with Vakalatnama The representative of the Respondent states that information had been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 11/04/2009. This also is clearly partial information. The Respondent Mr. Shoaib Hasan was asked if there were any reasons for giving the reply on 11/04/2009 when the Application was filed on 30/09/2008. The information should have been provided by 30/10/2008. Thus there was a delay of over five months. Also this reply of 11/04/2008 does not give a complete reply to Query Nos. 1 and 2 of the Complainant. The representative of the Respondent says he does not know why the reply was delayed so much and seeks an adjournment for two days. The Commission refused to grant any adjournment since the Commission is acutely aware that its time is paid for by the poorest citizen in India. Adjournments take up the time of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies resulting in the complete derailment of the justice system.
The Respondent has been given adequate time but appears to treat RTI with complete indifference. The representative of the Respondent was asked if he has brought any written submissions and he stated he had not brought any. He was asked whether he wanted to give any reasons and he stated he does not wish to provide any reasons.
While the Commissioner was dictating the order, the representative of the Respondent suddenly decided that he wanted to make a submission. He stated "We do not fall under the ambit of public authority under Section 2(h) of RTI Act 2005." He was asked to explain further but he refused to do so.
It is curious that after so many months a position is taken that the Respondent is not a public authority. In response to Commission's notice dated 23/03/2009, the Respondent replied to the Complainant's RTI Application. A copy of the reply sent by the Registrar of the Respondent University is on the file and it is clear that the Respondent did not raise the objection of not being a public authority for the purpose of RTI Act at that point. Once the Commission issued its decision on 08/05/2009, the Chief Administrator of the Respondent University wrote to the Commission stating that it had not received the 23/03/2009 notice of the Commission, which was contradictory to its earlier reply dated 11/04/2009. In this letter also, the University did not raise the issue of it not being a public authority.
From the website of the Respondent University it appears that it is a deemed University. The Commission in decision number: CIC/OK/A/2008/01098/SG/2550 of 31/03/ 2009 has ruled that deemed Universities are public authorities under the RTI Act.
Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 provides for the constitution of Deemed Universities. Section 3 reads as follows:-
"The Central Government may, on the advice of the Commission, declare by notification in the Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a University, shall be deemed to be a University for the purpose of this Act, and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2."Page 2 of 3
Thus according to Section 3 deemed Universities are declared to be so by notification in the official Gazette by the Central Government. Thus a deemed University will come within the definition of "Public Authority".
In the present case, as the Respondent University is a deemed University, it is undoubtedly a public authority for the purposes of the Act and the information should have been provided to the Complainant within 30 days of receiving the RTI Application and the representative of the Respondent is suddenly claiming that it is not a public authority only as a delaying tactic.
Decision:
The Commission directs Dr. R.S. Tripathi to send complete information to the Complainant before 15/09/2009. The Commission has given an opportunity to the Respondent three times already to show cause why a penalty should not be levied on him. Even today the Respondent wishes to waste the time of the Commission and burden the public without giving any reasonable cause. The Commission finds this a fit case to levy penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Since the delay has been over 100 days, the Commission levies a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the Registrar of the Respondent University Dr. R.S. Tripathi.
The Vice Chancellor, IASE University is directed to recover the amount of Rs.25000/- from the salary of Dr. R.S. Tripathi, and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs.5000/ per month every month from the salary of Dr. R.S. Tripathi and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from October 2009. The total amount of Rs.25000 /- will be remitted by February 2010."
Facts leading to Showcause on 04 March 2010:
The Commission received a letter dated 24/12/2009 from the Complainant, wherein, he alleged that till date order of the Commission had not been complied with. Hence a showcause notice was issued to the Respondent to appear before the Commission on 04/03/2010 to showcause why penalty should not be levied on him.
Relevant Facts emerging during the Showcause hearing on 04 March 2010: The following were present:
Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Dr. R.S. Tripathi, Registrar; Mr. R. K. Agarwal, Advocate;
Mr. R. K. Agarwal, Advocate for IASE University states that he apologizes for the delay in complying the order of the Commission. Dr. R. S. Tripathy, Registrar states that the complete information has been provided to the Complainant on 18/02/2010. Both the Respondents present have assured the Commission that the penalty payable under penalty order will be deposited before 30 April 2010.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 04 March 2010 Page 3 of 3