Central Information Commission
Harish Chugh vs All India Council For Technical ... on 14 September, 2018
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.:- CIC/AICTE/A/2017/149158-BJ
Mr. Harish Chugh,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
All India Council for Technical Education,
Plot No. 1A, 5th Floor, DTE Punjab Building,
Dakshin Marg, Sector 36-A,
Chandigarh-160036
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.09.2018
Date of Decision : 14.09.2018
Date of RTI application 07.04.2017
CPIO's response 25.04.2017
Date of the First Appeal 08.05.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 19.06.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.07.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the certified copies of Composition of Board of Governors for AICTE approved institutions, certified copies of BOG of Panipat Institute of Engineering and Technology, Samalkha Panipat, Haryana for the last 3 years along with the certified copies of Mandatory Disclosure of the said for the year 2016 and 2017 etc. The CPIO, vide letter dated 25.04.2017, stated that the desired information was not available at NWRO, Chandigarh. Dissatisfied with the CPIOs response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 19.06.2017, for point no. 02 & 03, directed the RO & PIO, NWRO, AICTE, Chandigarh to provide the information directly to the Appellant within a period of 10 days of receipt of his order, if the same was available and not exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005.Page 1 of 5
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Harish Chugh through VC;
Respondent: Mr. R. L. Sharma, Consultant, AICTE, RO Chandigarh through VC; and Mrs. Ruchika Kem, Asst. Director/CPIO, AICTE, New Delhi; Mr. Nawal Arora, Asst. Director & PIO, AICTE, New Delhi; Dr. K. K. Arora, Consultant, AICTE, New Delhi in person;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that no information was provided to him and that the representatives of AICTE skirted the issue in its reply. Moreover, even after a lapse of 30 days, he was being asked to deposit Rs. 370/- which was in contravention of the provisions of Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, 2005. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that a letter for depositing the fee was issued on 14.07.2017 which was denied by the Appellant. The Commission however, noted that AICTE was the premier apex institution for grant of affiliation to higher educational institutions and it was incumbent upon them to ensure that mandatory information was provided to the Appellants besides its disclosure on their website as mandated by them in their affiliation documents. The representatives of AICTE present at the hearing agreed that mandatory disclosures had to be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of their approval and that if the extant guidelines on the subject was not followed by any institution, the same could be investigated by them. In the aforesaid matter it was however, observed that the guidelines issued by AICTE were not being complied with which was a matter of serious concern and investigation.
As regards the plea of the Appellant regarding disclosure of information, free of cost, the Commission observed that no response was provided to the Complainant within the mandatory period of 30 days from the date of RTI application, hence the information should indeed be provided to him, free of cost. In this context, the Commission referred to the following observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh in its decision in WP (C) No. 353 of 2015 dated 04.11.2015:
"7. A careful reading of the provisions contained in Section 7 makes it clear that the stage of providing information free of cost would occasion only when the PIO fails to pass an order disposing of the application by rejecting the same within 30 days or in other words, when the PIO fails to take up application for taking decision in the matter within 30 days, he has to provide information free of cost, but in case where the PIO has passed an order within 30 days and the first appellate authority set aside the order and directs providing of information, occasion for providing information free of cost would not arise. It would be different if the first appellate authority itself directs the PIO to provide information free of cost. But in the case in hand, the first appellate authority has not directed the petitioner to provide information free of cost. Once the application is considered and disposed of under Section 7, applicability of outer limit of 30 days would Page 2 of 5 have no application and any further action in the matter has to be decided in terms of the order passed by the first or second appellate authority."
The Commission further 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 Page 3 of 5 independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. 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."
Above all the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 had held as under:
"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."Page 4 of 5
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission was appalled to learn about the recalcitrant attitude of the Public Authority who had dealt with the RTI application in a casual and callous manner. It therefore, directs the Public Authority to furnish information on point 03 free of cost to the Appellant and conduct an enquiry into the allegations levelled by the Appellant and submit its report to the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands 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: 14.09.2018
Copy to:
1- The Chairman, AICTE, 1, Nelson Mandela Marg, Pocket 10, Sector B, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, Delhi 11007 (with the instruction to ensure that the guidelines formulated by it were implemented in letter and spirit by the affiliated Institutions in its own interest as also the larger public interest involved therein.) Page 5 of 5