Central Information Commission
Ranjeet Singh vs Department Of Higher Education on 2 May, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/SA/A/2016/000618/MP
Appellant : Shri Ranjeet Singh, Khagaria (Bihar)
Public Authority : MHRD, New Delhi,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi,
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Noida
IGNOU, New Delhi
AICTE, New Delhi
Medical Council of India, New Delhi
Bar Council of India, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : April 25, 2017
Date of Decision : May 2, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Shri Uma Maheswara Rao, Assistant Commissioner
(Acad.), NVS, Shri D.N. Sharma, EA, NVS, Shri C.V.
Anand, AR (SRD), IGNOU, Shri Shikhar Ranjan,
Law Officer, MCI, Shri Ashok Kumar Podar, Shri
Senthial Kumar, Bar Council of India, Ms. Piya
Thakur, Dy Commissioner, KVS - at CIC
RTI application : 13.08.2015
CPIO's reply : 19.08.2015
First appeal : 02.11.2015
FAA's Order : 24.11.2015
Second appeal : NIL
ORDER
1. Shri Ranjeet Singh, the appellant, sought information pertaining to the names, addresses, registration no., name of the University to which they are affiliated and annual fees charged by all the government and private Engineering colleges, Medical colleges and Law colleges in India; action that would be taken against a college that charges fees higher that what had been stipulated along with the name, designation and address of the authority who was empowered to take action; names and addresses of the schools that had reserved 25% of their seats for poor children under the Right to Education Act, 2009; reasons for non-compliance with the RTE Act, 2009 by various schools viz., Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas; etc., through eight points.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), MHRD, advised the appellant to file his RTI application relating to points 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 with the CPIO, MHRD and to approach the Medical Council of India and the Bar Council of India for obtaining information on point 2 & 3 of the application and the University Grants Commission (UGC) for obtaining information on point 4 of his application, respectively, by paying the RTI fees in a proper mode. However, having regard to subject matter of the appellant's RTI request which pertained to different public institutions/authorities, various CPIOs, MHRD, transferred the appellant's RTI application to the authorities concerned u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, for providing the requisite information to the appellant directly since, the matter in question pertained to them. The CPIOs, MHRD, KVS, NVS, IGNOU, AICTE, MCI and the BCI provided the available information to the appellant, if the matter in question pertained to them, as per the records, upon receipt of the RTI application from the MHRD. Dissatisfied with the incomplete responses of the various CPIOs, the appellant approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA), MHRD, with a request to provide correct and complete information. The FAA while disposing of the appeal, informed the appellant that whatever information was available with them had been provided to the appellant while for the rest of the information, the appellant's RTI application had been transferred to the various authorities concerned for providing information to him, directly. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide correct and complete information to the appellant in addition to recommending necessary disciplinary action against the CPIO concerned.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had been provided incomplete information by the CPIOs of MHRD, KVS, NVS, IGNOU, AICTE, MCI and BCI and therefore, sought complete and correct information, in Hindi, from the public authorities concerned in his second appeal. The appellant submitted that he was a social activist and that he required the requested information for creating awareness among the class X and XII school children in Bihar for attaining higher education.
4. The respondent stated that the CPIOs, AICTE and MCI, vide replies dated 14.10.2015 and 08.12.2015, informed the appellant that the list of all the engineering and medical colleges in India, as sought by him on points 1 and 2 of his RTI application was already available on the website of the authority concerned. However, information relating to the fees charged by the medical/engineering colleges could be provided only by the college concerned. Further, the CPIO, BCI, submitted that the appellant was informed vide reply dated 28.09.2015 regarding point 3 of his application that the preparation for list of all the Law Colleges and Universities in India was under process, however, the said list which ran into 65 pages, was now available with the respondent authority, which could be obtained by the appellant on depositing the requisite fees. The CPIO, BCI had, however, provided information relating to the eligibility criteria for taking admission in the law colleges, to the appellant. The respondents further submitted that no information was available with them relating to the inquiry undertaken on colleges that were charging excess fees annually. Further, the CPIO, KVS and NVS also submitted that they had provided the available information to the appellant on points 4, 5 and 6 of his RTI application viz., list of total number of students admitted under the Right to Education Act, 2009, since 2010, which pertained to them, vide letters dated 18.12.2015 and 17.11.2015, while information relating to the administration of the schools concerned was available on the website of the KVS, respectively. On point 8 of the appellant's RTI application, the CPIO, IGNOU submitted that the available information relating to the provision for admission of students to various medical and engineering colleges under IGNOU, whose parents had annual income of less than rupees one lakh, had been already provided to the appellant on 23.10.2015.
5. On hearing both the parties, the Commission observes that the appellant had sought voluminous information pertaining to the number of independent public authorities having their own CPIOs and channel of first appeal from the Ministry of Human Resources Development. The information sought related to the Engineering colleges, Medical colleges, Bar Council of India, Kendriya Vidyalayas, University Grants Commission, among others, and could have been sought from the public authorities concerned directly; yet, the MHRD transferred the RTI application to various authorities who duly responded. Thus, information that was available with or held by the respondent authorities has been already provided to the appellant by the CPIOs concerned upon receipt of the appellant's RTI application from MHRD. The public authority is not supposed to create or collate non-available information for the satisfaction of the appellant but, it is supposed to furnish only that information to the appellant which is held by it or under its control in material/data form under the Act. The Commission further observes that majority of the information sought by the appellant is available on the websites concerned of all the public authorities, which can be duly accessed by the appellant and need not exclusively be provided to him by the public authority. In this regard it is worth to note the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Registrar of Companies & Ors V/s Dharemendra Kumar Garg & Ors which has held as under:
"9. ... an information to which a citizen will have a right should be shown to be a) an information which is accessible under the RTI Act and b) that it is held or is under the control of a certain public authority. This should mean that unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely, or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be 'held' or 'under the control of' the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act."
6. The Commission therefore, upholds the decision of the CPIO. The appellant is, however, advised to approach the public authority concerned, directly, in future to seek information relating to it. This will also enable a quicker response. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority M/o Human Resources Development M/o Human Resources Development Under Secretary (U 1), H.E. Bureau, Deputy Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Department of Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001 Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001 The Central Public Information Officer The Central Public Information Officer Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Joint Commissioner (Education), Assistant Commissioner (Edu.), Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, 18, B-15, Institutional area, Sector-62, Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016 Noida - 201 309 The Central Public Information Officer The Central Public Information Officer Indira Gandhi National Open University, All India Council for Technical Education, Assistant Registrar, 7th Floor, Chandra Lok Building Student Registration Department, Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001 Registration Section - V, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi - 110 068 The Central Public Information Officer The Central Public Information Officer Medical Council of India, Bar Council of India, Pocket - 14, Sector - 8, Assistant Secretary, Dwarka Phase - 1, 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, New Delhi - 110 077 New Delhi - 110 002 Shri Ranjeet Singh, S/o Shri Ramchalittar Singh, Village - Bharpura, Post & Thana - Chautham, District - Khagaria, Bihar - 851 201