Central Information Commission
Pradip Pradhan vs University Grants Commission on 23 June, 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/UGCOM/A/2019/149787
Pradip Pradhan अपीलकता /Appellant
....अपीलकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
University Grants Commission,
RTI Cell, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110002. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21/06/2021
Date of Decision : 21/06/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03/06/2019
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 16/08/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 20/09/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09/10/2019
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.06.2019 seeking the following information:
The CPIO transferred the RTI application on 30.07.2019 against point No. (j) under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the CPIO/Registrar, Kalinga lnstitute of Social Sciences (Deemed University),Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
The reply of CPIO/Registrar, Kalinga lnstitute of Social Sciences (Deemed University), Bhubaneswar, Odisha, if any, is not available on record.2
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.08.2019. FAA's order dated 20.09.2019 stated as follows:-
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply and wrong denial of information against point J on the plea that KISS does not come under the purview of public authority, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant second appeal on the premise that since the RTI was filed with the UGC so it being a regulatory authority is liable to provide the desired information after procuring the same from KISS.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Represented by Rajesh Kumar, Section Officer (CPP-I/DU) & CPIO present through audio-conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that no information has been provided to him by CPIO against para (J) except a reply informing him the factum of transferring his RTI Application to KISS, Bhubaneshwar.
The CPIO submitted that the information sought for at para (J) pertains to Kalinga lnstitute of Social Sciences (Deemed University), Bhubaneswar therefore the RTI Application was transferred to said University under Section 6(3) of RTI Act with due intimation to the Appellant. Upon a query from the Commission, the CPIO further submitted that as per his knowledge no grants-in-aid is being received by the said University.3
He also apprised the Commission that the information relating to the compliance report which the Appellant has sought for in the said point was prepared and issued by KISS University and presented before the MHRD. In fact, the role of the UGC was limited to carrying out due diligence to determine the eligibility of the averred institution as a deemed University and forwarding the same to the Ministry for the final decision. He further added that they don't keep any records of such information/report as the case is forwarded to the MHRD with all the relevant records/documents.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record as well as the proceedings during the hearing observes that the transfer of the RTI Application by UGC to the Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (Deemed University), Bhubaneswar mindlessly without ascertaining the status of the said University vis- à-vis Section 2(h) of the RTI Act was grossly inappropriate.
In fact, in the instant case, the status of the averred University being a public authority or not under the RTI Act is not the question for determination as the RTI Application was filed with a public authority. Here, it is relevant to bring out the provisions of Section 2(j) and 2(f) of the RTI Act which clearly stipulates that:
Section 2(j)- "...."right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to--..........."
Section 2(f)- "...."information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force..."
Upon a conjoint reading of the two Sections, it becomes essentially clear that the RTI Application of the Appellant has to be construed in the spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Act. It is emphasized therefore that the Appellant has sought for the information from a public authority and not from the 4 averred University, therefore the transfer of the RTI Application to the University was not warranted.
Similarly, if the report as sought for at para (J) of the RTI Application was sent to MHRD by UGC, it would have been prudent for the CPIO to have transferred the RTI Application to the Ministry under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
Having observed as above and in keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, the CPIO is now directed to procure the available information as sought for at para (J) of the RTI Application from the concerned record holder in the MHRD, OR access the same from the averred University and provide it directly to the Appellant through speed/registered post. The information to be provided in compliance with this order will be free of cost and the said directions shall be complied with by the CPIO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
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