Central Information Commission
Vijay Shirke vs University Grants Commission on 28 June, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क ीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गं
गनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई िद ी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2017/601028/00934
File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2017/601028
In the matter of:
Vijay Shirke
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
University Grants Commission (UGC),
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
Delhi-110 002
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 25/11/2016 CPIO replied on : Not on Record First appeal filed on : 29/12/2016
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 22/02/2017 Date of Hearing : 28/06/2019 Date of Decision : 28/06/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Mrs Manju Nagpal, Section Officer , Representative of the CPIO.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
Once the Ph.D. Degree is awarded to the Ph.D. Students by Central / State / deemed / Private University as per UGC (Minimum Standard and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. degree) Regulations, 2009, then who is the competent Authority/Body which can investigate and decide whether Ph. D. degree awarded is valid or invalid.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant was not present to plead his case despite duly served notice vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED032933998IN dated 11.06.2019.
The representative of the CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply has been provided to the appellant on 27.02.2017.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that apart from the order of the First Appellate Authority dated 27.02.2017, there is no reply from the CPIO which was also admitted by the representative of the CPIO. The representative of the CPIO was not in a position to explain as to why no such reply was provided to the appellant by the CPIO which amounts to violation of the right to information of the appellant. The Commission observes that a correct and timely reply is the essence of the sunshine Act to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. In this context, the Commission refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions.
These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
While failure to provide any reply, even an interim one is a grave lapse on the part of the CPIO, considering that an appropriate reply has been sent to the 2 File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2017/601028 appellant by the First Appellate Authority on 27.02.2017 and also a recent reply has been sent to the appellant in the month of June 2019 explaining the position with respect to UGC and its role in deciding the validity of the Ph.D degree, the Commission is taking a lenient view in the matter with a warning that such a careless approach should not be taken in future.
Decision:
The Commission observes that the concerned CPIO has failed in his statutory responsibility under the RTI Act in not providing any reply to the appellant within the stipulated time frame. The Commission therefore issues a strict warning to the CPIO to remain careful in future and ensure that proper timeline is followed as per the provisions of the Act. Since however, an appropriate reply was given by the FAA and reiterated in June 2019, the Commission accepts the reply of the respondent department. Moreover, the appellant was not present to further his case. No further intervention is required.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3