Central Information Commission
Sh. Ketan P. Bhatt vs Indian Institute Of Management, ... on 17 March, 2010
Central Information Commission
CIC/SG/A/2009/002806
Dated March 17 , 2010
Name of the Applicant : Sh. Ketan P. Bhatt
Name of the Public Authority : Indian Institute of Management,
Ahmedabad
Background
1. The Applicant, a Senior Computer Professional working with the Respondent Institute filed RTI application 26.11.2008 with Prof. Rajanish Dass, Chairperson, Computer Services Committee [CSC] seeking detailed information about each meeting of the CSC since Jan 1991 including information about date/time/place of meeting, names and addresses of all individuals who attended the meeting, agenda for the meetings, minutes of the meetings etc. The Applicant requested to be provided with information about the meeting held on 24.10.2008 on priority basis alongwith his performance evaluations by successive Chairpersons since 1988, specifically last few years' evaluations on priority basis.
2. The PIO responded by his communication dated 18.12.2008 stating that the RTI application had been forwarded to the PIO by the Chairperson, Computer Services Committee [CSC] with the instructions that since a lot of information pertaining to the CSC meetings is in hardcopy, the Applicant be intimated to deposit a suitable amount [estimated to be] Rs. 50,000/- for accessing the information, subject to the fact that any amount over the actual number of pages photocopied will be returned to the Applicant. The PIO had further quoted that in view of a change of guard since 2007 when the then Head of CC had resigned, the Chairperson, CSC had expressed doubt about the availability of documents prior to August 2007.
3. The Applicant sent a communication by email on 18.12.2008 to the PIO enquiring as to when the application was received at his office and also to confirm the deposit amount in words while expressing that the amount demanded as deposit is too high and hence sought justification of such exorbitant fees. The PIO sent a reply email dated 20.12.2008 acknowledging receipt of the Applicant's email and also stating that the same had been forwarded to CSC Chairperson for his response. The PIO once again sent an email on 02.01.2009 to the Applicant stating that despite their efforts to locate the records of CSC meetings the same could not be traced. The PIO further stated in his letter dated 02.01.2009 that though they were still trying to trace the records and would provide the same as and when they receive the same, yet since the records of the CSC are within the purview of Computer Centre, the Applicant may try to approach the Head, Computer Centre (Acting) to access the information as sought by him. The Applicant addressed another email dated 04.01.2009 to the PIO seeking a signed copy of his response to the RTI application dated 18.12.2008. The PIO responded by his email dated 07.01.2009 reiterating his contentions as already stated in the correspondences so far and also admitting that since the information sought was under the purview of Computer Centre, the PIO was not aware of the volume of the data available in this regard with the CC, hence he could not provide any justification with respect to the fees demanded. The Applicant was once again advised to approach the Head, Computer Centre (Acting) in this regard.
4. Being dissatisfied with the exchange of the correspondence so far, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 02.02.2009 alleging that the actions of the PIO were arbitrary and reveals the malafide intentions of the PIO. He also sought inspection of list of documents which had gone missing since the resignation of the Head, CC. Furthermore the Appellant while seeking personal hearing before the First Appellate Authority sought the presence of a personal videographer and an RTI expert during the hearing.
5. The Appellate Authority passed an order dated 13.03.2009 deciding the First Appeal upholding the PIO's communication dated 07.01.2009. The Appellant Authority while turning down the Appellant's request for a personal hearing in the presence of a videographer and an RTI expert on the ground that the RTI Act 2005 does not provide for the same; has further contended that the Appellant's intention is not merely to seek information nor redressal of any grievance but his attempts were directed to malign the institute and its reputation. Referring to the existence of the Grievance Redressal mechanism existent in the Institute, the Appellate Authority endorsed the action taken by the PIO and confirmed that the PIO has already provided complete information about the same. It has further been clarified by the CAO & Appellate Authority that the deposit of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of the information was sought by the CSC and simply communicated by the PIO, who was not aware of the volumes of the information, since CSC is the custodian of information.
6. The Appellant filed a Complaint dated 15.05.2009 before the Central Information Commission feeling aggrieved by the communications received from the PIO and the AA. The Appellant contended that the Public Authority had misused provisions of the RTI Act 2005 while attempting to defraud him of Rs. 50,000/-, which according to him was an unreasonable amount. He also criticized the nonchalant system of document maintenance with the Public Authority wherein precious records simply vanished and became untraceable with the resignation of the then Head, Computer Centre. Since the contents of the Complaint did not justify classifying the case as a Complaint, the Complaint was registered as an Appeal by the CIC. [do we need to justify this point any further?]
7. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for March 17, 2010 and the notice dated 15.02.2010 for the hearing was accordingly sent to the parties.
8. Mr. K S Joshi, Establishment Officer and Mr. N V Pillai, Chief Admn. Officer represented the Public Authority.
9. The Applicant was present in person during the hearing.
Decision
10. The respective parties made their submissions reiterating the events leading to this hearing. While the Commission noted that this was a fit case where the Chairperson, CSC should have addressed the application himself, being the custodian of information, as a deemed PIO and justified the fees at the very threshold. However, as the position emerged and based on the contention of the Respondent that the information sought by the Appellant is contained in approximately 23,000 pages, the fees as indicated by the Respondent seems reasonable. There does not appear any malafide more so, because the communication of the PIO to the Appellant clearly indicates that the Chairperson, CSC had stated that an estimated amount of Rs. 50,000/- be deposited to access the information "....subject to the fact that we will return anything above the actual number of pages photocopied..." while levying the normal photocopy charges of Rs. 2 per A4 sized page. The fact about the information being contained in 23000 pages had also been duly communicated to the Appellant by the Respondent's letter dated 26.10.09. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is agreed between the parties that the Respondent shall now provide the information as sought by the Appellant free of cost under provisions of Section 7(6) of the RTI Act 2005. The information to be made available to the Appellant by 10th May 2010.
11. The case is disposed of on the above terms.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Sh. Ketan P Bhatt "OM", 1, Gunjan Park AMC Office Road, Thaltej Lake Ahmedabad,
2. The PIO Indian Institute of Management Vastrapur Ahmedabad - 3800015 Gujarat
3. Appellate Authority Indian Institute of Management Vastrapur Ahmedabad - 3800015 Gujarat
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC