Central Information Commission
Sivaprakasam vs National Testing Agency on 19 August, 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/NTAGN/A/2020/661217
Siva Prakasam ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Testing Agency, RTI Cell,
IITK Outreach Centre, C-20 lA,
8, Sector 62, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh 201309 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/08/2021
Date of Decision : 18/08/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25/11/2019
CPIO replied on : 13/12/2019
First appeal filed on : 16/12/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 18/01/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Not on record
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 25.11.2019 seeking the following information;
1) "Name and Location of the examination centre allocated to the candidates applied for UGC-NET DECEMBER 2019 for the examination city chosen as PUDUCHERRY (CODE:PO01)
2.) Subject wise number of candidates applied from the UT of Puducherry and examination centers allocated to them.
3) Reason for the many candidates from the UT of Puducherry applied Puducherry as examination centre have posted to appear examinations in Chennai which is 160km away from the Pondicherry."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 13.12.2019 stating as under :-
"1. The information sought cannot be provided under section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005.
2. Information sought may be provided after completion of the examination activities and declaration of result.
3. Examination Centers have been allotted to the candidates in order of the City choice opted by them in their Application Form. However, due to administrative reasons, a different city of nearby area may be allotted."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2019. FAA's order dated 18.01.2020 stated as follows;-
"UGC NET December 2019 has been conducted in 81 subjects. In total 2560 candidates appeared in 04 Examination Centers in Puducherry. However, information sought cannot be provided under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appealon the ground of wrong denial of information by the CPIO and FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.2
Respondent: Binod Kumar Sahu, Joint Director & CPIO present through audio- conference.
The Appellant stated that the denial of information by the CPIO and FAA under 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act is against the transparency of the administration and also defeating the very purpose of RTI Act. He further reiterated the contents of his written submission dated Nil as under -
"......As I just sought name and location of the centres since, no such a centres within the locality of Puducherry has been allocated to candidates and I never sought individual wise centre allocation details to which affects the privacy of individuals as stated in the above provisions. Which affect large number of candidate who all are applied from Puducherry for UGC- NET DEC, 2019 including myself and the information sought by me is involved large public interest I request to you kindly direct the appellate authority and PIO to provide information has sought by me and they are invoking two different provisions to refuse information which is against the sprite of RTI Act."
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply has already been provided to the Appellant. He further apprised the Commission that for UGC NET exams, NTA before conduct of the exams always issues information bulletin as per the norms and under the said bulletin, the examination centres are not disclosed considering the integrity of such exams, however, names of the cities where the centres are located are mentioned in the bulletins. He furthermore submitted that UGC NET exams of 2019 was conducted for 81 subjects in 700 centres in two shifts across 219 cities and therefore, information relating to the list of centres for all the subjects is voluminous in nature disclosure of which would unwarrantedly divert the resources of the public authority.
At the behest of the Commission, CPIO added that if the Appellant could specify the subject and a particular State/UT for which information is sought , in that event relevant available information against points no. 1 & 2, could be provided to the Appellant.
Upon a query from the Commission, the Appellant restricted his prayer for information against point no. 1& 2 of RTI Application for UT of Puducherry and for the subject on 'Public Administration'.
Decision:
3The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the denial of information against point no. 1 by the CPIO initially under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act as also denial of information by the FAA against points no. 1 & 2 under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act was not appropriate and also the fact remains that no substantial explanation justifying the said denial of information was forthcoming from the CPIO during the hearing.
In view of this and considering the proceedings during the hearing, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply on points no. 1 & 2 of RTI Application along with list of examination centres of averred exam for the UT of Puducherry as also indicating the total number of candidates who applied for the UGC Net exams 2019 from the UT of Puducherry for the subject 'Public Administration' . The said reply and information shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission further notes from the scrutiny of RTI Application that the information sought for at point no. 3 of RTI Application does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has sought clarification/inference from the CPIO based on a speculative query. In this regard, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. His attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay&Ors[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities 4 have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors[SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009],the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"......7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of aforesaid observation, no relief can be granted on this point.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (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