Central Information Commission
Sukhdeo Prajapati vs National Council For Teacher Education on 1 June, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NCTED/A/2019/142141
Sukhdeo Prajapati ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Council for Teacher
Education, RTI Cell, Eastern Regional
Committee, 15 Neelakantha Nagar,
Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar - 751012, Odisha. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31/05/2021
Date of Decision : 31/05/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25/02/2019
CPIO replied on : 29/03/2019
First appeal filed on : 10/04/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 25/06/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22/08/2019
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.02.2019 seeking information pertaining to Proceedings of 213th meeting of ERC-NCTE held on 29th-30th April, 2016 & 01st -02nd May, 2016, including inter-alia;
a) "Provide the certified copy of all written noting/views of all concerned committee members.
b) Provide the certified copy of all legal proof/ supportive (documents) that show Ph.D. degree of CMJ University is fake University.
c) Provide the certified copy of details along with name, designation, Email IDs and contact numbers & attendance details (manual/electronic) of all concerned committee members present during the meeting held in cognizance to the above mentioned reference.
d) Provide the certified copies of the details of total discussion/s done by all concerned committee members reaching to this conclusion/s as CMJ University is fake University in cognizance to the above mentioned reference.
e) Provide the name of First Appellate Authority to whom the applicant can appeal in case of unsatisfactory reply of the application."
The CPIO furnished point wise reply to the appellant on 29.03.2019 stated as follows:-
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.04.2019. FAA's order dated 25.06.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO.2
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference. Respondent: Pawan Kumar Bairagi, Section officer & Rep. of CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the reply provided by the CPIO as the information sought for has been denied to him without any reasonable cause. He further submitted that the information that was indicated to be available on their website could not be located by him till date.
The Rep. of the CPIO submitted that they only have the proceedings of the ERC meeting as the relevant record for the queries raised by the Appellant and copy of the same has been sent for the Commission's perusal on 19.05.2021. He further stated that since the CPIO is down with COVID, he is not in a position to put forth any further inputs in the case i.e in terms of justifying their original reply and that he is only stating the facts that are there on the record. He furthermore submitted that the revised reply to the RTI Application could not be sent to the Appellant through post due to the ongoing lockdown in the wake of COVID, and agreed to send a copy of the same to the Appellant through email.
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record takes grave exception to the evasive reply provided by the CPIO on 29.03.2019 as it reflects upon his gross non-application of mind in having denied the information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act without any perceivable applicability of the same. Moreover, the Rep. of the CPIO has admitted during the hearing that the only information available on the subject is the ERC meeting proceedings, reference of which was indicated in the original reply by stating its availability in the public domain and before the hearing also, in their written submissions to the Commission, a copy of the same has been enclosed. This further proves that the original reply of CPIO was rather contradictory and misleading in nature.3
The Commission records severe admonition for the conduct of the CPIO in the matter as he failed to provide the complete information to the Appellant without any reasonable cause. The CPIO is strictly cautioned to ensure proper application of mind before invoking the exemption clauses of the RTI Act in future.
Further, the CPIO is now directed to send the complete available information in terms of the proceedings and minutes of the averred ERC meeting to the Appellant via email within 2 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4