Central Information Commission
Anil Vyas vs Central Board Of Secondary Education on 6 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/CBSED/A/2017/141395-BJ
Mr. Anil Vyas,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Central Board of Secondary Education,
Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi - 110092
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.09.2018
Date of Decision : 06.09.2018
Date of RTI application 03.04.2017
CPIO's response 01.05.2017
Date of the First Appeal 04.05.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 16.06.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the list of all CBSE affiliated school imparting education to class 12th students in the subject of fine art (Subject Code-049, 050, 051 and 052) The CPIO vide its order dated 01.05.2017 denied the information as it was not available in the affiliation unit of the Board. Dissatisfied by 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 5
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rohit Agrawal Appellant's representative through VC; Respondent: Mr. Ajit Jain, SO and Ms. Lata Arora, Section Officer, New Delhi;
The Appellant's representative reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that the desired information relating to the Schools imparting education to class 12 students on the subjects mentioned in the RTI application was not provided, till date despite the information being very generic in nature. Explaining that the CPIO/ FAA provided a non-reasoned response, the Appellant's representative inter alia prayed for imposition of penalty on the CPIO. In its reply, the Respondent stated that no specific information was sought by the Appellant and that the information was not available in their units. On being queried by the Commission regarding the reason why the application was not transferred to the concerned Public Authority u/s 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005, no satisfactory response was offered by the Respondent. On being further questioned by the Commission whether the information relating to subject wise list of all the CBSE affiliated schools was uploaded on their website or not and if so the reason for not specifying the same in the reply of the CPIO/ FAA, the Respondent replied in the affirmative but tendered their unconditional apology for not mentioning the same in their reply.
The Commission referred to the judgement 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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 it has held that:
"The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
A reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) wherein it was held as under:
Page 2 of 57."it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the matter of Block Development Officer, Paonta Sahib vs. State Information Commission and Anr., CWP No. 6072 of 2012 dated 27.06.2018 held as under:
"9. It is vehemently urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from vice of arbitrariness and, therefore, should be quashed and set aside. It was further argued that the petitioner on receipt of the application had transferred it to the concerned authorities and, therefore, there was no lapse on his part. He would also urge that the petitioner did not know the intricacies of the RTI Act and, therefore, he could not have been penalized.
10. I find no merit in the contention put-forth by the petitioner. It is more than settled that ignorance of law can be no excuse. Once the petitioner is designated as PIO, then all the more he is deemed to have knowledge and even otherwise the least that was required of him was to have acquainted himself thoroughly with the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, the explanation as sought to be put-forth by the petitioner at this stage clearly reflects the lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner. The only reasonable explanation for the cause of delay can be accepted and not lame excuses."
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 Page 3 of 5 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:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;Page 4 of 5
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)]."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide the information sought by the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent to suo motu disclose the list of all affiliated Schools (subject wise) on its website within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order in the larger public interest and for the ease and convenience of the Public at Large.
The Commission would like to place on record its displeasure to the CPIO over the casual manner in which the RTI application had been dealt with by the Respondent. The CPIO is therefore, warned to be extremely careful and vigilant in handling RTI petitions in future, failing which the Commission would initiate penal action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
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: 06.09.2018
Copy to:
1- The Chairman, CBSE, Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi - 110092 Page 5 of 5