Central Information Commission
Manoj Kumar vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 12 June, 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/CC/A/2015/003008/MP
Appellant : Shri Manoj Kumar, Patna
Public Authority : MHRD/AIU, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : June 01, 2017
Date of Decision : June 09, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Shri Shivam Dixit, Software Engineer, Shri Pradeep
Kumar, Consultant, AIU and Shri Jitu Rathore, ASO
from MHRD - at CIC
RTI application : 19.11.2014
CPIO's reply : 25.11.2014, 19.01.2015
First appeal : 13.01.2015
FAA's Order : 08.01.2015
Second appeal : 24.03.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Manoj Kumar, the appellant, sought information as to whether or not Association of Indian Universities (AIU) was a Government organization; whether or not it was mandatory for a higher education institution established or controlled by the State Govt. to acquire membership of the Association and obtain recognition from AIU for its courses.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) transferred the appellant's application u/s 6(3) to the CPIO, AIU for providing information to the appellant, directly, as the subject matter pertained to AIU. The appellant, not having received any response from the CPIO, AIU to his RTI application within the stipulated time period, approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and requested him to provide the desired information. The FAA informed the appellant that his RTI application was transferred to the CPIO, AIU on 25.11.2014, as the information pertained to them. In the meanwhile, the CPIO, AIU provided the available information, as per records, to the appellant. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the response of CPIO on point 1 of his application, came in appeal before the Commission with a request to direct the CPIO to provide specific information on point 1 as sought by the appellant in his RTI application.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he was particularly not satisfied with the CPIO, AIU response to point 1 of his RTI application as the mention of AIU on MHRD's official website gave an impression that it was under the control of Central Govt. or aided by it.
4. The respondent stated that the appellant was provided the available information, as per the records, by the CPIO, AIU on 19.01.2015 that Association of Indian Universities was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it was not a govt. controlled/funded/aided organization.
5. On hearing both the parties, the Commission observes that the appellant was provided the available and existing information, as per the records by the CPIO, Association of Indian Universities on 19.01.2015, upon transfer of the RTI application from MHRD. A public authority is not supposed to create non-available information or furnish clarifications for the satisfaction of the appellant. A public authority is supposed to furnish only that information to the appellant that is held by it or under its control in material/data form under the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay has observed as follows:-
"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. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analyzed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant."
6. The Commission, therefore, holds that the CPIO has appropriately responded in the matter. 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 Ministry of Human Resource Ministry of Human Resource Development, Under Secretary, Development, Department of Higher Education, Department of Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001 Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110 001 Association of Indian Universities, Information Officer, AIU House, 16, Comrade Indrajit Gupta Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 Shri Manoj Kumar, 18, Vastu Ganga Colony, Gola Road, Danapur, Patna, Bihar - 801 503