Sandeep Bhatt vs Ihm Shimla on 21 March, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sandeep Bhatt vs Ihm Shimla on 21 March, 2023

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                          क य सुचना आयोग
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                            बाबा गंगनाथ माग
                           Baba Gangnath Marg
                       मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
                       Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                                              File no.: - CIC/IHMSI/A/2022/613582
In the matter of
Sandeep Bhatt
                                                                     ... Appellant
                                         VS
The CPIO
Institute of Hotel Management,
   Catering & Nutrition, (IHM)
Kufri, Shimla, HP - 171 012
                                                                   ...Respondent

RTI application filed on          :   28/10/2021
CPIO replied on                   :   30/11/2021
First appeal filed on             :   01/12/2021

First Appellate Authority order   :   27/12/2021
Second Appeal Filed on            :   08/03/2022
Date of Hearing                   :   20/03/2023
Date of Decision                  :   20/03/2023

The following were present:
Appellant: Not present

Respondent: Deepak Parmer, Administrative Officer and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1 Provide the number of sanctioned Academic Posts of different levels at IHM Kufri for every year since its inception. 2 Provide a copy of the recruitment and promotion roster in respect of academic staff of IHM.

3 Provide details of all incumbents who have been recruited or promoted to the post of Lecturer at IHM since inception. 4 - 24. And other related information.

Grounds for filing Second Appeal:

The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant was not present at the VC venue despite notice sent vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED914764745IN. The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was provided vide letter dated 30.11.2021.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 30.11.2021 replied to the appellant and informed that information sought by him is voluminous and hence, he may avail inspection and obtain documents as per rules.

The appellant was not satisfied with the reply and filed a first appeal on 01.12.2021 and requested the FAA to provide him the details of the questions which they are not able to answer along with the provisions/rules in the RTI Act, 2005 under which they are unable to provide answers. He also submitted that he is ready to pay the required fees for providing this detailed information. In respect of the CPIO's request to visit the institute for the required information, he clarified that it is not possible for him to travel in the current scenario where there is new corona variant spreading and secondly due to his busy personal and professional schedule it's not possible for him to visit the Institute.

The FAA vide order dated 27.12.2021 held that as per Section 7 (9) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.

The Commission accepts the appellant's plea partially that the FAA also failed to take steps to atleast provide some of the information which is readily available. It appears that based on the number of questions asked, Sec 7(9) was invoked.

The information sought in points no. (5) and (9) can be provided. However, some of the queries are interrogatory and not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. Points no. 10-18 and 20-24 are queries in nature seeking answers and reasons which fail to come under the ambit of information as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. As far as points no. (1) to (4), (6) to (8) and (19) are concerned taking note of Sec 8(1)(j) exemption whatever information is not personal to the individuals and available with the respondent can be given. Decision:

As discussed above and during the hearing, the CPIO should note that the appellant is a resident of a different city and therefore, inspection should be avoided and information on the points mentioned above can be sent in the form of a revised reply. The reply shall be sent within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.





                                              Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
                                      Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!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

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission