Central Information Commission
Chitresh Kumar vs Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 23 July, 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/JNUND/A/2020/100366&
CIC/JNUND/A/2020/669961
Chitresh Kumar ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
RTI Cell, O/o the Central Public
Information Officer, Room No. - 133,
New Delhi - 110067. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/07/2021
Date of Decision : 22/07/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : SarojPunhani
Note: The above referred Appeals have been clubbed for decision as these are
based on the same RTI Application.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15/10/2019 & 15/10/2019
CPIO replied on : 06/11/2019 & 06/11/2019
First appeal filed on : 15/11/2019 & 15/11/2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02/01/2020 & 02/01/2020
1
CIC/JNUND/A/2020/100366 &
CIC/JNUND/A/2020/669961
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.10.2019 seeking following information;
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 05.11.2019 relevant extract of which is as under :-
".....please note that ICC received a complaint against Mr. Chitresh Kumar and ICC has proceeded further with the complaint and has issued a restraint order to Mr. Chitresh Kumar. Also please note that inquiry is still pending in this case."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.11.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.2
Respondent: Sanjeev Kumar, Director (CIS) & Nodal CPIO, JNU present through audio-conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO alleging it to be misleading and vehemently urged corruption in all the affairs of the University.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 15.07.2021, relevant portion of which is reproduced below in verbatim -
1. "The RTI application received on 15.10.2019 was processed and forwarded to the concerned PIOs of the University i.e. PS to VC and Presiding Officer (ICC), JNU vide letter dated 16.10.2019, to provide the information directly to the applicant.
2. Therefore, the reply/information received from the office of PO, ICC was sent to the applicant vide letter dated 05.11.2019 (containing 01 pages).
3. The 1st Appeal dated 25.11.2019 of Shri Chitresh Kumar was also processed and forwarded to the Presiding Officer (ICC) to revisit the reply and to provide the revised information, if any available .
4. Thereafter, the reply received from PO, ICC, JNU was sent to the appellant vide FAA letter dated 24.12.2019 with a request to contact the office of CPIO, ICC, JNU for any clarification in this regard."
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the reply provided by the CPIO adequately suffices the information sought for by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Further, the issues raised by the Appellant regarding the veracity of the information provided by the CPIO and alleged corruption in the working of JNU are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act and the superior Courts have made observations to this effect in a catena of judgments over the course of time.
In particular, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:3
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."(Emphasis Supplied) While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."(Emphasis Supplied) And, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer vs. Gurpreet Kaur (W.P.[C] 2113/2019) dated 21.10.2019 has placed reliance on the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Namit Sharma's case to emphasize as under:
"8. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the powers of the Commission are confined to the powers as stated in the RTI Act...."
In view of the foregoing observations, no further action is warranted in the matter.
4However, to allay the apprehension of the Appellant he is advised to contact the PO, ICC,JNU as suggested by the CPIO for further clarifications.
The appeal(s) are disposed of accordingly.
SarojPunhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5