Central Information Commission
Hilaluddin vs Indian Council Of Forestry Research And ... on 24 May, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/ICFRE/A/2018/110426/00715
File no.: CIC/ICFRE/A/2018/110426
In the matter of:
Hilaluddin
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education,
PO - New Forest, Dehradun - 248 006
Uttrakhand
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 10/11/2017 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 28/12/2017 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 09/02/2018 Date of Hearing : 23/05/2019 Date of Decision : 23/05/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Raman Nautiyal, Scientist E & CPIO, Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education, Shri S Dhawan, Course Coordinator & CPIO, FRI deemed University, present over VC.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Certified copy(s) of Minutes of the Academic Council (AC) meeting(s) of FRI Deemed University (FRIDU) held, if any, before its First Board of Management 1 (BoM) meeting dated 20.07.1992 that show(s) appointment of Equivalence Committee or any other committee for examining the syllabus of AIFC Diploma awarded to IFS probationers by the IFC Dehradun at par with or equivalent to the syllabus of M.Sc Forestry awarded by recognized Indian University.
2. Certified copies of any other papers or dossiers or documents placed before the BoM of FRIDU dated 20.07.1992 that indicates syllabus of AIFC Diploma at par or equivalent to syllabus of M.Sc. Forestry awarded by a recognized Indian University.
3. Certified copy of the notification of the committee at Sl. No. 1 by the FRIDU or FRI if any.
4. Certified copy of the Minutes of the meetings of the above committee if any.
5. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondents during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that till date he has received no response from the CPIO and hence penalty should be imposed on the concerned CPIO for violating the provisions of the RTI Act.
The CPIO, ICFRE submitted that since the subject matter pertained to FRI deemed University, the RTI application was transferred to them on 13.11.2017 for providing a reply to the appellant directly. The CPIO, FRI deemed University submitted that an appropriate and point wise reply has been provided to the appellant on 28.03.2018. He further submitted that the appellant had filed a similar RTI application which was also duly replied on 30.10.2017 which also covers the similar points raised in the present RTI application.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that a point-wise and appropriate reply as per the availability of the records has been provided to the appellant by the CPIO on 28.03.2018 which shows that there has been delay of 03 months in providing a reply. On this point the CPIO submitted that the delay was not intentional and they have duly replied to all other RTIs filed 2 File no.: CIC/ICFRE/A/2018/110426 by the same appellant. He tendered his apology for such delay and assured that the same will not be repeated in future.
It is also noted that another reply has also been given on 30.10.2017 in connection with an RTI application dated 08.10.2017 which covered almost similar points as raised by the appellant in his present RTI application. The appellant should note that every single repetition of a RTI application would unnecessarily demand the valuable time of the public authority, First Appellate Authority and if it also reaches the Second Appeal, that of the Commission. Such RTI applications of repetitive kind lead to obstruction of the flow of information with respect to other applicants and defeats the very purpose of the RTI Act. The said Act should be used wisely and responsibly.
At this juncture, the Commission finds it relevant to draw attention to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay, 2011 8 SCC which is reproduced as below, "Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Decision:
Based on the above observations, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO. No further intervention is required in the matter. However, since the appellant submitted that he has not received any reply till date, the CPIO, Shri 3 S Dhawan is directed to resend the reply dated 28.03.2018 to the appellant via speed post within 03 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The Commission also observes that the CPIO, FRI deemed University, Shri S Dhawan has abdicated his statutory responsibility under the RTI Act in not providing a timely reply to the appellant within the stipulated time frame. The Commission issues a warning to the CPIO, to remain careful in future and to ensure that timely replies are provided to every RTI application.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु 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 4