Central Information Commission
Abdul Basit Naik vs Maulana Azad National Urdu University ... on 29 April, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
कें द्रीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुननरका, नई दिल्ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.:- CIC/MANUU/A/2018/615576/03299
File no.:- CIC/MANUU/A/2018/615576
In the matter of:
Abdul Basit Naik
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Maulana Azad National Urdu University,
Office of the Central Public Information Officer,
Room No-21, Ground Floor,
Administrative Building,
Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500032
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 09/01/2018 CPIO replied on : 06/02/2018 First appeal filed on : 14/02/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 26/03/2018 Second Appeal dated : 31/03/2018 Date of Hearing : 27/04/2020 Date of Decision : 27/04/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Heard over phone
Respondent: Mohd Hashim Ali, Deputy Registrar & CPIO, heard over phone.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the Xerox copies of UGC (Minimum Standards & Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree) regulations from 2009 to 2016 which show that pending disciplinary enquiry/criminal case against the Research Scholar, he/she shall not be allowed to submit the thesis.1
2. Information pertaining to Arts & Social Science Research Scholars -
Duration of PhD and details of submission of thesis for 2014-15, 2015- 16, 2016-17 & 2017-18.
3. Provide the Xerox copies of new & old Regulations for the PhD programme of Maulana Azad National Urdu University.
4. Minimum and maximum duration for awarding the M.Phil/ PhD degree.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided misleading information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO particularly on point no. 1 of the RTI application. He further submitted that alongwith him, there were two other students against whom the same FIR was filed, however, they were allowed to submit their thesis on time and hence the university has wasted his time by not accepting his final thesis within a reasonable time.
The CPIO submitted that complete information as desired by the appellant was provided to him on 06.02.2018 thereby enclosing 64 pages as enclosures to the reply. Giving the background of the case, the CPIO submitted that the Appellant was pursuing Ph.D. in Women Studies from the respondent University. There was a criminal case pending against the Appellant, however, he was allowed to submit his thesis and the award of his Ph.D. degree was kept on hold by the University. The University had taken a lenient view and the Ph.D. degree has been awarded to the Appellant vide Result Notification dated 17.10.2018. During the course of pendency of award of Ph.D. degree, the Appellant threw a flood of RTI applications to the office of the CPIO asking various types of voluminous information and documents. His each and every RTI application had been responded to by the CPIO and all the required documents were provided to him.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the available information was provided to the appellant on 06.02.2018. With respect to point no.1, the CPIO referred to clause 19.3.3 of the UGC guidelines and submitted that action was taken on the basis of this clause only. The Commission does not find any flaw in the reply of the CPIO as under the 2 provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under the control of the public authority can be provided. The CPIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record.
It is observed that the appellant is aggrieved with the fact that there was a long delay by the Department to accept his final thesis and he was unnecessarily harassed by the university in awarding Ph.D degree to him. The appellant should note that the Commission is not an appropriate forum for redressal of grievances and any such issue should be taken up with the competent authority within the organisation itself.
The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and not to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions had held that the RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"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. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"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 forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute.3
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."
In a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had 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.
7 . In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme."
Decision:
In view of the above observations and the judgments mentioned, the Commission does not find any scope for intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित सत्यानित प्रनत) 4 A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिनांक / Date 5