Central Information Commission
Vijay Kumar Puri vs All India Council For Technical ... on 30 November, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.412, III Floor, CIC Building, Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/AICTE/A/2017/186579/MP
Appellant : Shri Vijay Kumar Puri, New Delhi
Public Authority : AICTE, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : November 13, 2017
Date of Decision : November 30, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Shri Vijay Kumar Puri - at CIC
Respondent : Ms. Ruchika Kem, Asstt. Director and Shri Sachida
Nand, Cosultant - at CIC
RTI application : 16.06.2016
CPIO's reply : 09.08.2016
First Appeal : 14.09.2016
FAA's Order : N.A.
Second Appeal : 14.10.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Vijay Kumar Puri, the appellant, sought copies of agenda, minutes and decision of the emergent meeting dated 20.10.2010 regarding quashing of equivalence certificate for PGDM; whether the decision taken was published in the newspaper; when was the information of quashing of equivalence certificate for PGDM sent to the Ministry of HRD, other Govt. departments, Universities and institutions; copy of all the communications; whether any information about the quashing was sent to the Institute of Management & Information Science, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa and copy of the said correspondence etc. through 14 points.
2. The CPIO provided information in two pages to the appellant against all 14 points intimating that it contained minutes of emergent meeting dated 20.10.2010 for quashing of equivalence certificate for PGDM. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the FAA. The FAA does not appear to have adjudicated in the matter. Aggrieved, the appellant made this appeal before the Commission stating that specific and point wise information had not been provided by the CPIO and copy of minutes of meeting provided in para 2 was incomplete.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he sought information under 14 points about decision taken in the emergent meeting held on 20.10.2010 regarding quashing of equivalence certificate for PGDM but no specific reply had been given by the CPIO against each of the points. Moreover, incomplete and unattested copy of two pages of minutes of emergent meeting only was provided to him on 09.08.2016 and the first appeal dated 14.09.2016 was not disposed of. He also requested for imposition of penalty on the CPIO for not providing complete information within the stipulated time.
4. The CPIO stated that the appellant sought information regarding quashing of equivalence certificate for PGDM and the then CPIO on 09.08.2016 provided two pages containing the relevant minutes of emergent meeting held on 20.10.2010. She stated that on going through the receipt records of the Bureau concerned, it was noted that the first appeal dated 14.09.2016 filed by the appellant was not received in AICTE, hence, the deficiencies (if any) in the reply dated 09.08.2016 could not be rectified at the first appeal stage. Subsequently, the complete information in a point wise manner had been sent to the Commission on 27.09.2017 with a copy to the appellant. A copy of the reply dated 27.09.2017 along with all the enclosure (duly attested) was provided to the appellant during the hearing.
5. On hearing both the parties, the Commission observes that the reply provided to the appellant on 09.08.2016 was not point wise and the RTI application dated 16.06.2016 was disposed of in a casual manner providing two unattested pages of minutes of meeting. The then CPIO not even provided the particulars of the FAA as required u/s 7 of the RTI Act, 2005 to the appellant for filing first appeal. However, the specific and point wise reply along with all the enclosures had been provided to the appellant during the hearing on 13.11.2017. Regarding the appellant's plea for initiation of penal proceedings against the CPIO, it would be relevant to quote the observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 01/06/2012, in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. W.P.(C) 11271/2009, while quashing the showcause notice issued by the Commission under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the observations are as under.
"61. ......................Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the CPIO in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension on those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to fulfill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequence would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC............"
In the instant matter, it cannot be said that the then CPIO acted out of any malice or with intent to deny the information sought by the appellant as the then CPIO had provided the relevant pages of minutes of meeting to the appellant on 09.08.2016. Hence, initiation of penal proceedings, therefore, would not be justified. However, the Commission cautions the CPIO for not providing a point wise reply within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the RTI application and for not providing the particulars of the FAA and therefore not adhering to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and directs the CPIO to ensure that while replying to RTI applications the particulars of the appellate authority and the period within which appeal can be made should be invariably mentioned as provided u/s 7 of the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy. Registrar Copy to:
Appellant Shri Vijay Kumar Puri House No. 382, Pocket -1&2 Sector-3, Dwarka, Near DPS New Delhi-110078 The Central Public Information Officer All India Council for Technical Education Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj New Delhi - 110067 The First Appellate Authority All India Council for Technical Education Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj New Delhi - 110067