Central Information Commission
Dilip Singh Premi vs Pharmacy Council Of India on 15 March, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/PHRCI/A/2017/602557-BJ+
CIC/PHRCI/A/2017/603093-BJ+
CIC/PHRCI/A/2018/614674-BJ
Mr. Dilip Singh Premi
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Pharmacy Council of India,
NBSS Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot No. 2,
Community Centre, Maa Anandamai Marg,
Okhla Phase I, New Delhi-110020 ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 14.03.2019
Date of Decision : 15.03.2019
ORDER
RTI - I File No. CIC/PHRCI/A/2017/602557-BJ Date of RTI application 27.02.2017 CPIO's response 27.03.2017 Date of the First Appeal Nil First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information in respect of Technocrats Institute of Technology-Pharmacy, Bhopal (Pharmacy College), the list of all Non Teaching Staff, such as Lab Staff, Library Staff, Office / Admin / Supporting Staff etc., for the period January 2007 to December 2016 The CPIO, vide its letter dated 27.03.2017 provided a response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
Page 1 of 9
RTI - II File No. CIC/PHRCI/A/2017/603093-BJ
Date of RTI application 22.11.2016
CPIO's response 19.12.2016
Date of the First Appeal 26.12.2016
First Appellate Authority's response 13.01.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the attested copy of the list of Non Teaching Staff of "Technocrats Institute of Technology-Pharmacy", Bhopal (Pharmacy College), for the period 2008-2014, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 19.12.2016 informed the Appellant that the Pharmacy Council of India did not maintain the details of non-teaching staff of the pharmacy staff. Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 13.01.2017, endorsed the reply of the CPIO.
RTI - III File No. CIC/PHRCI/A/2018/614674-BJ Date of RTI application 18.12.2017 CPIO's response 18.01.2018 Date of the First Appeal 30.01.2018 First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the recent inspection report submitted by the Inspector after such inspection to the PCI relating to "Technocrats Institute of Technology-Pharmacy", Bhopal (Pharmacy College), the list of all Staffs along with their salary details (teaching and non-teaching staff etc.) whose names were mentioned in the above referred report, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 18.01.2018 requested the Appellant to deposit photocopying charges of Rs. 8/- (@ Rs. 2 per page) for providing photocopies of the available documents. Dissatisfied with the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;Page 2 of 9
Respondent: Mrs. Archna Mudgal, Registrar-cum-Secretary and Mr. H. N. Yadav, Consultant;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Chandrakant Mishra, Network Engineer NIC studio at Bhopal confirmed the absence of the Appellant. However, the Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 11.03.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/PHRCI/A/2017/602557-BJ and Appeal No. CIC/PHRCI/A/2018/614674-BJ) wherein it was submitted that although he did not require the desired information as sought in the RTI application now, it was inter alia prayed to the Commission to direct the Respondent that any additional fees in respect of online application should be accepted on online portal only instead of any other mode. It was also prayed to conduct investigation on whether there existed any mode to receive online fee prior to 27.03.2017/18.01.2018. If the answer to the same is Affirmative then explanation be called from the PCI justifying the reason for demanding fee through offline mode (cash via receipt/ DD/cheque/IPO). A reply of the First Appellate Authority addressed to the Appellant dated 23.05.2017 in File No. CIC/PHRCI/A/2017/602557- BJ, was also enclosed wherein a clarification was also provided while reproducing the Section 7 (3) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005, that while intimating the amount of further fees representing the cost of providing information, the CPIO has recorded the break-up of amount and the rate at which the amount has been arrived at for providing photocopies of the documents. With regard to query relating to payment of fee, it was informed that the Applicant had sought for additional information in the form of payment link in Appeal which is outside the scope of Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. As also the mode of payment of fees has already been displayed on the Council's website under Section 4(1) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 10.03.2019 and 12.03.2019, in File No. CIC/PHRCI/A/2017/603093-BJ, wherein while explaining the background of the case and sensitivity involved in the matter, and while referring to the decision of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/MEDCI/A/2017/110434, it was inter alia prayed to the Commission to direct the PCI and AICTE to place all its inspection reports of the institutions in the public domain for ease and convenience of all the concerned. In its reply, the Respondent, Registrar-cum-
Secretary, submitted that a suitable reply in all the three RTI applications had been provided to the Appellant. It was further informed in File No. CIC/PHRCI/A/2017/602557-BJ that the column 8 of Part IV- PERSONNEL of SIF, the number of Non-Teaching Staff available for B. Pharma Course is required to be filled by the respective Institutions only and therefore, the list of Non-Teaching staff was not available with them and the same was informed to the Appellant also.
After the hearing, the Commission was also in receipt of an e-mail from the Respondent dated 14.03.2019 wherein while explaining the procedure for approval of pharmacy institutions under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, it was submitted that from the present year, the PCI has automated the inspection procedure involving online submission of application by pharmacy institutions and for the same, a software has been developed by NIC, Hyderabad. With regard to inspection report of the institution in the public domain, it was informed that the PCI has framed the various Education Regulations for different pharmacy courses as empowered under Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act and as per the said Regulations, the PCI does not seek the details of the non teaching staff like names, address, salary details, PAN details and other personal record etc. Only category wise number of non-teaching staff with qualification is sought. It was further submitted that the PCI lays lot of emphasis on teaching staff for which it has made the Regulations called "Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Pharmacy Institutions Regulations, 2014". These Regulations prescribe the name of the post, academic qualification and experience required for the said post for different pharmacy courses. The said Regulations are also available on Page 3 of 9 Council's website. Based on the Regulations, the Council has designed a well structured and defined proforma called Staff Declaration Form (SDF) which contains not only the statutory information like qualification, experience etc. but also personal details like date of birth, residential address, copy of passport / voter card / ration card, PAN No. / electricity bill / driving licence etc. as a proof of residence, salary details etc. and that this SDF is a part of the inspection report. Since the inspection report contains a lot of personal information, presently the inspection reports are not posted on the Council's website. However, all statutory documents like Pharmacy Act and the Regulations, all policy circulars, approval status of the institutions with intake capacity, information as per RTI Act, the minutes of the Council both the Executive Committee and Central Council, details of members of the Council, various committees of the Council etc. and other important information are in the public domain. It was further requested that the Office of PCI has shifted to Okhla and hence it was prayed to the Commission to change the address of the Council as Pharmacy Council of India, NBSS Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot No. 2, Community Centre, Maa Anandamai Marg, Okhla Phase I, New Delhi-110020. The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 12.03.2019 in File No. CIC/PHRCI/A/2018/614674-BJ wherein while reiterating the response of the CPIO/FAA dated 18.01.2018/20.03.2018 respectively, it was submitted that the copies of lists of teaching as well as non-teaching staff of the "Technocrats Institute of Technology-Pharmacy", Bhopal was made available to the Council with the inspection report dated 27th and 28th April, 2018 and the same was enclosed for the reference of the Commission. It was further submitted that all efforts were made by the PCI to supply information to the Applicants within the meaning of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission also noted that a similar subject-matter had been heard and adjudicated by it in Appeal No. CIC/AICTE/A/2017/604216-BJ dated 08.10.2018 in which the All India Council for Technical Education was a party.
Hearing the Respondent at length and considering the written submissions of both the parties, the Commission is of the view that with regard to Appellant's request regarding direction to the Respondent Public Authority for payment of additional fees in respect of online application should be accepted on online portal only instead of any other mode, Rule 6 of the Right to Information Rules, 2012 was drawn, which is narrated as under:-
6. Mode of Payment of fee--
Fees under these rules may be paid in any of the following manner, namely:--
(a) in cash, to the public authority or to the Central Assistant Public Information Officer of the public authority, as the case may be, against a proper receipt;
or
(b) by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority; or
(c) by electronic means to the Accounts Officer of the public authority, if facility for receiving fees through electronic means is available with the public authority. Therefore, based on the above referred RTI Rule 6, a conclusion can be drawn that the RTI Rules itself provides an option for remitting additional fee through online mode only if facility for receiving fees through electronic means is available with the public authority. The Commission is duty bound to comply with provisions of the Act and Rules in letter and spirit.
Page 4 of 9The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(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 ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged Page 5 of 9 to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
Moreover, the Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
Page 6 of 9A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Sayyed Education Society v. State of Maharashtra, WP 1305/2011 dated 12.02.2014 had held that public authorities are under a statutory obligation to maintain records and disseminate as per the provisions of the Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. The High Court in this respect, held as under:
"Needless to state that as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 14 in the case of CBSE and Another (supra), Public Authorities are under an obligation to maintain records and disseminate the information in the manner provided under Section 4 of the RTI act. The submission of the petitioner that it is an onerous task to supply documents, therefore is required to be rejected. The Law mandates preserving of documents, supplying copies thereof to the applicant, in our view, cannot be said to be an onerous task."
The Commission felt that there is an urgent need to develop a robust system of record keeping in the Respondent Public Authority and to review its efficaciousness periodically. In this context, a reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Union of India v. Vishwas Bhamburkar, W.P. (C) 3660/2012 dated 13.09.2013 wherein the Court had in a matter where inquiry was ordered by the Commission observed as under:
"6............It is not uncommon in the government departments to evade disclosure of the information taking the standard plea that the information sought by the applicant is not available. Ordinarily, the information which at some point of time or the other was available in the records of the government, should continue to be available with the concerned department unless it has been destroyed in accordance with the rules framed by that department for destruction of old record. Therefore, whenever an information is sought and it is not readily available, a thorough attempt needs to be made to search and locate the information wherever it may be available. It is only in a case where despite a thorough search and inquiry made by the responsible officer, it is concluded that the information sought by the applicant cannot be traced or was never available with the government or has been destroyed in accordance with the rules of the concerned department that the CPIO/PIO would be justified in expressing his inability to provide the desired information. Even in the case where it is found that the desired information though available in the record of the government at some point of time, cannot be traced despite best efforts made in this regard, the department concerned must necessarily fix Page 7 of 9 the responsibility for the loss of the record and take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for loss of the record. Unless such a course of action is adopted, it would be possible for any department/office, to deny the information which otherwise is not exempted from disclosure, wherever the said department/office finds it inconvenient to bring such information into public domain, and that in turn, would necessarily defeat the very objective behind enactment of the Right to Information Act."
The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the matter of Chandravadan Dhruv vs. State of Gujarat and Ors, Special Civil Application No. 2398 of 2013 dated 21.12.2013 held as under:
"24. Since the issue raised by the petitioner is of a vital public importance, we, on our own, made a little research on the subject and found that the Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India has constituted a Task Force for the effective implementation of Section 4 of the RTI Act. As a part of this Task Force, IT for Change is facilitating a sub group on 'Guidelines for Digital Publication under RTI supporting Proactive Disclosure of Information'. As a part of the work of this sub-group a one day consultation was held on the said subject i.e. 'Formulating guidelines for digital publication under RTI supporting proactive disclosure of information' in Bengaluru. 25.3 How to ensure proper record keeping?
• The required level of proactive disclosure is not possible without appropriate record keeping, and this aspect needs focused attention. There are detailed rules for record keeping and they should be strictly followed and the scheme for it should be published. Record keeping practices may have to be reviewed from the point of view of comprehensive proactive disclosure requirements, especially through digital means. • Section 4.1.a is very clear about the need for proper record keeping, inducing in digital and networked form. Funds should be earmarked for digitizing records. Complete details of all records that are maintained and available digitally, and about those which are not, with due justification thereof, should be published. Annual reports on compliance with section 4.1.a should be sought by the Information Commissions. • The costs involved in digitizing resources and maintaining networked computer based record-keeping and information systems is often cited as a major deterrent. It was felt that it is no longer a major issue. India is at par or better in terms of IT issues than many developed countries that maintain high standards of digital publishing of public information. The real cost is in terms human resources, including skills, and these are easily available at all levels in India today.
• An example was given about how a government office in Bangalore was able to scan all its documents at a very low cost. Another example that was discussed was of 'Bhoomi' project in Karnataka, whereby, it was contended that, if open public access to such complex spatial data as the land records of the entire state can be ensured, how can giving access to all textual documents of an office or department be any more difficult."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
Page 8 of 9DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case, and the detailed submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The Commission however directs the Respondent Public Authority to consider payment of any additional fee online, and the same should be incorporated and implemented in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission also directs the Respondent Public Authority to suo motu disclose the information which ought to be disclosed in the public domain in compliance with Section 4(1)
(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 to ensure transparency, objectivity and accountability in the functioning of the Public Authority.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 15.03.2019
Page 9 of 9