Central Information Commission
Srikanth Sreedhar vs Department Of Higher Education on 24 February, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. . (As Per Annexure)
Srikanth Sreedhar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
1. University Grants Commission,
New Delhi
2. National Institute of Technology,
Karnataka, Surathkal,
3. Dept. of Higher Education,
New Delhi
4. Lokpal Of India,
New Delhi
5. Central Information Commission,
New Delhi ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 612175 20.12.2023 18.01.2024 18.01.2024 07.02.2024 Nil
2. 612389 20.02.2024 08.03.2024 08.03.2024 12.03.2024 Nil
3. 617474 18.01.2024 23.04.2024 28.03.2024 25.04.2024 Nil
4. 627766 06.06.2024 18.06.2024 20.06.2024 25.06.2024 Nil
5. 630951 13.06.2024 27.06.2024 27.06.2024 19.07.2024 Nil
6. 634934 29.05.2024 13.08.2024 26.06.2024 09.07.2024 Nil
Page 1 of 40
7. 648761 27.05.2024 21.10.2024 09.07.2024 Not on Nil
record
8. 655322 23.08.2024 21.10.2024 09.10.2024 12.12.2024 Nil
9. 656847 31.10.2024 18.11.2024 18.11.2024 12.12.2024 Nil
10. 656848 24.11.2024 02.12.2024 02.12.2024 12.12.2024 Nil
11. 613730 30.12.2023 23.04.2024 31.01.2024 31.05.2024 Nil
12. 619139 20.02.2024 05.03.2024 17.03.2024 18.04.2024 Nil
13. 619145 02.03.2024 05.03.2024 17.03.2024 18.04.2024 Nil
14. 642378 13.06.2024 14.06.2024 09.09.2024 12.09.2024 Nil
15. 642405 13.08.2024 16.08.2024 20.08.2024 12.09.2024 Nil
16. 614830 27.10.2023 03.11.2023 27.12.2023 08.02.2024 Nil
17. 633044 19.06.2024 16.07.2024 16.07.2024 01.08.2024 Nil
18. 622184 24.03.2023 10.04.2023 10.04.2023 03.05.2023 Nil
19. 623158 23.04.2024 30.04.2024 30.04.2024 31.05.2024 Nil
20. 627886 23.04.2024 20.05.2024 20.05.2024 28.06.2024 Nil
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these are based on the
same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 17.02.2025
Date of Decision: 24.02.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/612175 Page 2 of 40
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) DoPT RTI Guidelines are uploaded.
The records should be retained as per the record retention schedule applicable to the concerned public authority. (page 4) So I want a copy of the UGC Document that shows for how long the records should be maintained by UGC for meeting minutes, Committee-reports of UGC, documents that the UGC submits to the Parliament or to the Courts etc. 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"As requested the document pertains to record retention policy in this office of UGC is annexed."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 07.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/612389
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(i) I want a copy of the Marks Ledger Sheet for IRRIGATION DESIGN AND DRAWING. My hall ticket no. is 9502349. I am uploading document of Mangalore Univ where the Registrar Evaluation has confirmed that the University has my Marks Ledger Sheet.Page 3 of 40
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"No material information is held by U.G.C on the subject matter. The details of students enrolled in universities are not maintained/held by U.G.C. such details are available with the concerned Universities only. You are requested to approach the concerned University."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.03.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/617474
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(i) I want proof in the form of EMAIL that Prof Chinnappa Gowda accepted the role of Ombudsman of Manglaore Univ. I have uploaded proof that Prof Shivalingaiah informed ME that he has sent email to Mangalore Univ stating that he is unable to accept the role of Ombudsman. So, where is the email proof that Prof Chinnappa Gowda ACCEPTED the role of Ombudsman?
3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record of public authority. The Public Information Officer is also not required to furnish Information which require drawing of inference and/or making of assumptions or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions."Page 4 of 40
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 25.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
3.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/627766
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(i) I want a copy of the Govt of India Ministry of Education Documents as well as UGC Documents that shows the names of the Universities to whom the MoE and UGC communicated the CIC Order CIC/BANHU/A/2017/110128-BJ regarding the Guidelines for Revaluation of Answer Sheet.
4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"UGC has issued a leer No. D.O.No.9-27/2018(CPP-II) dated 19.07.2018 that is self explanatory and is available on UGC website i.e., www.ugc.gov.in. For more information contact the concerned university."
4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 25.06.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Page 5 of 40Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/630951
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Requesting all documents of UGC in connection with the appointment and resignation of Prof Mallikarjunappa as Ombudsman of Mangalore Univ as he has informed me by email that he is not the Ombudsman but UGC claims that he is the Ombudsman.
UGC has even informed CIC that Prof Mallikarjunappa is the Ombudsman. It means that UGC lied to CIC?
UGC must disclose ALL DOCUMENTS in connection with the selection, appointment and resignation of Prof Mallikarjunappa as Ombudsman. Who is the CURRENT Ombudsman as per UGC of Mangalore Univ? Why is UGC not able to tell the TRUTH on who the Ombudsman of Mangalore Univ is? UGC must come CLEAN.
UGC must provide FILE MOVEMENT DETAILS to prove that indeed Prof Mallikarjunapa was / is the OMBUDSMAN of Mangalore Univ. How can UGC say that Prof Mallikarjunappa is the Ombudsman but Prof Mallikarjunnappa denies that he is Ombudsman. Shocking. 5.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Please find enclosed herewith the requisition information sought by you."
5.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.06.2024. The FAA vide order dated 19.07.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Page 6 of 40Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/634934
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(i) I want a copy of any communication from UGC to Indian Parliament and Govt of India on the death of NITK Student Anand Pathak. I want a copy of the Expert Committee Report on Ombudsman following the action of the Chairman, UGC to set up this Committee after the Delhi HC issued directions to UGC in WP 10176 of 2016. I have uploaded documents which show that the Police have identified the cause of death as ATTENDANCE.
6.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"PIO has no information in this regard."
6.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.06.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 09.07.2024 directed the CPIO to review the response.
6.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/648761
7. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(i) No. F.8-31/2013/CPP-I/PU dated April 01 2024 shows that UGC wrote to the Chief Secretary of the Karnataka Govt to investigate the death of student at PES Univ by following up on their previous letter dated 27.12.2023.
I want ALL information held by UGC in connection with the deaths of students at PES Bengaluru including all communications between UGC and the Karnataka Page 7 of 40 GOVT including but not limited to the No. F.8-31/2013/CPP-I/PU dated April 01 2024 and the letter dated 27.12.2023.
I want a copy of the 11-member committee report of the Karnataka Govt on the death of Aditya Prabhu at PES.
7.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"After going through your RTI, it ls observe that Ombudsman is not accepting you, complaint after indicting the university. So you are requested to complaint can be registered at UGC E-samadhan portal. Further it is also to inform you that the public authority under section 2 (f) & 2 (j) of the RTI Art is required to furnish information which is available in his custody or as held by the Public Authority in any material form. It is not required to either interpret or draw conclusion from the material in its possession, or to solve the problem raised by the applicant "
7.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.07.2024. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 7.3 Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil. Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/655322
8. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(i) The reply of Prof. Manish R. Joshi (Secretary UGC) is uploaded. SEE REMARKS.
He said that a mail was sent to the registrar.
I want a copy of this email along with copies of attachments, if any. The reply document uploaded by him on CPGRAMS is same as the email that I uploaded of the Ombudsman of the University indicting the University.
Page 8 of 40So, as Ombudsman is not accepting my complaint after indicting the Univ, it became necessary to write to the UGC Chairman.
8.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Aer going through your RTI, it is observe that Ombudsmam is not accepting your complaint after indicting the university. So you are requested to complaint can be registered at UGC E-samadhan Portal. Further, it is also to inform you that the public authority under section 2(f) & 2(j) of the RTI Act is required to furnish information which is available in his custody or as held by the Public Authority in any material form. It is not required to either interpret or draw conclusion from the material in its possession, or to solve the problems raised by the applicant"
8.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.12.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
8.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/656847
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.10.2024 seeking information on the following points:
My hall ticket No. at Mangalore Univ is 9502349. I want documents of UGC that show how many marks I secured in Irrigation Design and Drawing in:
1) Dec 1998 exam
2) June 1999
3) Sept 1999 revaluation of the June 1999 exam answer sheet,
4) Dec 1999, Page 9 of 40 I also want documents of Mangalore Univ that are in the possession of UGC that show how many marks I secured in Irrigation Design and Drawing in:
1) Dec 1998 exam
2) June 1999
3) Sept 1999 revaluation of the June 1999 exam answer sheet,
4) Dec 1999.
Finally, I want documents of Mangalore Univ that show how many marks I secured in Irrigation Design and Drawing in:
1) Dec 1998 exam
2) June 1999
3) Sept 1999 revaluation of the June 1999 exam answer sheet,
4) Dec 1999.
I returned the Original Marks Sheets when I rejected the Seventh Semester and appeared in all subjects of the Seventh Semester in June 1999. I am not in possession of the Marks Sheets as Mangalore University took back from me the old Marks Sheets in order to issue the new Marks Sheets. Hence, I want UGC and Mangalore Univ to officially disclose the requested information. My marks increased from 22/100 to 48/100 in June 2000 revaluation of the Dec 1999 exam in Irrigation Design and Drawing.
9.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.11.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
After going through RTI, it is to inform you that your RTI information already disposed by CIC as under
1. Date of Decision 12.7.2023
2. Date of Decision 06.06.2024 Page 10 of 40 The copy of above decision already communicated to you by the CIC as well UGC. You are requested to perusal the same for further information.
9.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.12.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
9.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/656848
10. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(i) I want a copy of the Tabulation records that prove inconsistencies in the matter of cancellation of Affiliation of Hindi Mahavidyalaya.
I have attached the ESHRAM Card for BPL. I lost job with TCS after some people deliberately failed me at NITK. Finally they were caught but no action was taken even though my marks increased from 22 to 48 on revaluation of answer sheet.
When OU could act against Hindi Mahavidyalaya, what difficulty did Mangalore Univ have in cancelling the affiliation of NITK when it was PROVED that the NITK Professors were stalking me given that the Mangalore Univ dispatched to NITK both my marks card and marks ledger sheet and the NITK was taking no action against the stalkers?
Hence, I want the Tabulation Records of OU to know how the Tabulation Process works to see how come Mangalore Univ refused to take action. It was the Academic Secon of NITK that issued to me the new marks card showing 48 marks by taking back the old marks card showing 22 marks. In Page 11 of 40 2018, a boy died at NITK. The NITK Grievance Redressal Commission Chairman on the day of the death of the boy was the same person who dealt with the subject in which I was stalked and victimized. Even when Karnataka HC Chief Justice ordered that I should get legal aid in the matter of death of the boy and WP 15462/2021 was registered, the Judicial Officers in Karnataka HC took no action and dismissed the PIL. Recently, the VC of Mangalore Univ ordered the Registrar to disclose the identity of the evaluators of ALL My answer sheets from 1995-2001 to establish through this data that NITK Stalkers knew in advance that they would be conducting both the original evaluation and revaluation. Yet, the Mangalore Univ Registrar refused.
So I gave a complaint to the Ombudsman and he too refused to act. When I gave a complaint to UGC, UGC Secretary sent an email to the Mangalore Univ Registrar. Still, the Registrar refused to act. There is clear proof of murder, corruption, stalking, privacy violation at NITK. So I request OU / UGC to provide the requested details so that I can share it with Mangalore Univ to get access to the Tabulation Records in my case.
(ii) QUOTE Following multiple inquiries by standing committees, the university cancelled the colleges provisional affiliation and recommended to the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Telangana State Council of Higher Education (TSCHE) to revoke its autonomous status.
UNQUOTE I request UGC to furnish a copy of all Communications from OU to UGC regarding cancellation of Autonomous Status of Hindi Mahavidyalaya.
Page 12 of 4010.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.12.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
In response your RTI UGC has already send to you copy of the CIC decision for the purpose.
10.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.12.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.12.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
10.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/613730
11. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) In connection with the SLP17403 of 2023 in the Supreme Court, where I am a stakeholder in this case, I want a copy of the document submitted to the UGC by the Vice Chancellors / Registrars of the Universities mentioned in the document uploaded, showing their compliance with the UGC (Redressal of Grievances of students) Regulations 2023 by way of appointing the Ombudsman. I want this information to expose the fact that whereas the Universities have used State Money to approach the Court for Redressal of Grievances and have even complained to the Supreme Court that the Governor cannot use the State Funds to fight his case, the Universities are not interested in providing redressal of grievances of students thus making the case for One Nation One Search/Selection Committee For VC/Ombudsman so that students don't suffer due to absence of full time VC and Competent Ombudsman Page 13 of 40
11.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The information provided in requisite RTI is insufficient. Please provide the full information."
11.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.01.2024. The FAA's vide order dated 31.05.2024, upheld the decision of the CPIO.
11.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/NITST/A/2024/619139
12. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) I want in writing whether NITK has my marks ledger sheet for Irrigation Design and Drawing. My hall ticket No. is 9502349. I am not asking for a copy of the Marks Ledger Sheet. Mangalore Univ has already confirmed to me that they sent to NITK both my Marks Card and Marks Ledger Sheet. So, I know that NITK has this information. I want to know if NITK accepts that they have this information or if NITK denies that NITK received this information from Mangalore Univ.
12.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
You were informed that you have not paid the application fee. Sufficient proof of income is not provided to substantiate. Below the poverty line status. Hence, your request is refused.
12.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false Page 14 of 40 and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
12.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/NITST/A/2024/619145
13. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(i) QUOTE from DoPT RTI Guidelines for SUO MOTU DISCLOSURE by Public Authority:
(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of TWO or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for Public UNQUOTE After the death of Anand Pathak NITK set up a Committee to come to a conclusion.
(DAIJI Newspaper report is uploaded) I want to know who the Committee Members are.
NITK must disclose this information SUO MOTO and immediately.
13.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
You were informed that you have not paid the application fee. Sufficient proof of income is not provided to substantiate. Below the poverty line status. Hence, your request is refused.Page 15 of 40
13.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
13.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/NITST/A/2024/642378
14. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(i) As Police have stated that the cause of death of late NITK Student Anand Pathak was Attendance, I want all information that the Ministry of Education of Govt of India has about the death of this boy including the representation of Students to NITK after the death of the boy and any other details like who the Committee Members were that the NITK Director set up to receive the representation of the students and what decision NITK Committee took and what subsequent Action NITK Director took. If UGC has No Information, then I request UGC to please state that UGC has No Information. As per UGC Guidelines, Biometric Marking of Attendance is recommended in the interest of safety of students.
14.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
You were informed that you have not paid the application fee. Sufficient proof of income is not provided to substantiate. Below the poverty line status. Hence, your request is refused.
14.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false Page 16 of 40 and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
14.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/NITST/A/2024/642405
15. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(i) The link: https://idr.nitk.ac.in/jspui/handle/1/16 shows only 10 annual reports.
I want the Annual Report for 1998-1999. NITK was known as KREC Surathkal at that me and it came under Karnataka Govt. So I want Karnataka Govt to disclose this information.
15.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
You were informed that you have not paid the application fee. Sufficient proof of income is not provided to substantiate. Below the poverty line status. Hence, your request is refused.
15.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.08.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.09.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
15.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DHEDU/A/2024/614830
16. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:-Page 17 of 40
(i) As a recently retired Supreme Court Judge has been appointed a Professor in Haryana despite retiring as a Judge at the age of 65 years, I want a copy of the Document that shows the Superannuation Age for Professors in order to know if the Judge meets the criteria to be eligible for appointment as a Professor as the College where he has been appointed appears to be a State Govt college.
I have respect for this Judge. Still, I want to know the Superannuation age for Professors to know if everything is in order.
16.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
The information available with U.II Secon in regard to your RTI Application is attached with the file.
16.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.12.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 08.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
16.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2024/633044
17. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
(i) I want a copy of the Lokpal Document that shows the status of my complaint against lokpal staff dated Oct 18, 2023, which I sent to the Chairperson by email. I want file movement details for this Complaint against Lokpal Staff.
17.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 18 of 40It is informed that the referred E-mail dated 18/10/2023 is a non-format complaint. As per the instant guidelines prevailing in Lokpal of India, no action is taken on the complaint forms which are not in the format and they are simply filed.
It is further informed that for consideration of any complaint by Hon'ble Bench of Lokpal of India, it is required to be made in accordance with the Lokpal (Complaint) Rules, 2020 (Copy available on the website of Lokpal of India) and in the format prescribed under the said Rules.
17.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.07.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 01.08.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
17.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/622184
18. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
(i) CIC has clearly stated in the order that no communication has been received from me conveying my contentions.
For the 2nd appeal, I submitted a Document specifically addressed to the CIC as required by CIC Rules for the second appeal. Had I not submitted it, then the CIC would have asked me to submit a fresh 2nd Appeal. Thus, as this is a Criminal Case, where the CIC has lied that I have failed to convey my contentions in order to protect the perpetrators of Institutional Murder and their protectors in the MoE and MMA, I want the CPIO to give in writing that I did not submit any communication to the CIC conveying my contentions on 19- Page 19 of 40 02-2022 when I submitted the 2nd Appeal or give me a copy of that specific communication submitted on that day along with the other RTI Documents, which I have uploaded.
This is a bloody murder case. As per CCS Conduct Rules, MHA should have come to Court and refused. MHA refused to state the reason for failure to appear in Court. CIC has deliberately ignored my written communication submitted on 19-02-2022 and has protected the perpetrators. This is a brazen support for the perpetrators of Murder.
CIC took over one year from the day of the Second Appeal dated 19-02-2022 and then bloody hell refused to order the MHA to disclose the information and then had the gumption to BLAME ME for failure to provide communication conveying my contentions even when I did convey my contentions. This is the most brazen cover up of institutional murder and criminal action will be initiated against the CIC.
If CPIO refuses to confirm that I submitted a written communication conveying my contentions to the CIC, I will initiate criminal action against the CPIO and the entire CIC Brass.
This is the most shameless and brazen support to the murderers and corrupt scoundrels.
Is this why we have CIC and Lokpal?
18.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.04.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
As already mentioned in the Second Appeal number CIC/DHOME/A/2022/610590, date of receipt this second appeal is 20.02.2022.
Page 20 of 4018.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.04.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 03.05.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
18.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/623158
19. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
(i) I want to know the reason why CIC is refusing to hold the 2nd Appeal for RTI Application No. UGCOM/R/E/22/05704 My marks increased from 22 to 48 on revaluation of answer sheet. It means that my stalkers knew that they will conduct the original evaluation and revaluation and that there is no fear of them getting caught for wrong evaluation.
To establish this using data, I need the requested information. CIC Hearing No. CIC/NICHQ/A/2024/614489 CIC Hearing No. CIC/PMOIN/A/2023/648281 CIC Hearing No. CIC/PMOIN/A/2023/655451 CIC Hearing No. CIC/NLSAT/A/2024/614247 CIC Hearing No. CIC/MHOME/A/2024/613013 were all new 2nd appeals when compared to the 2nd appeal for RTI Application No. UGCOM/R/E/22/05704.
Hence, I want a copy of the document that shows the REASON why CIC is not conducting the 2nd appeal for the identity of the evaluators of answer sheets.
Page 21 of 4019.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
The sought information does not fall under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, cannot be provided.
19.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 31.05.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
19.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/627886
20. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
(i) I want to know the reason why CIC is refusing to hold the 2nd Appeal for RTI Application No. UGCOM/R/E/22/05704 My marks increased from 22 to 48 on revaluation of answer sheet. It means that my stalkers knew that they will conduct the original evaluation and revaluation and that there is no fear of them getting caught for wrong evaluation.
To establish this using data, I need the requested information. CIC Hearing No. CIC/NICHQ/A/2024/614489 CIC Hearing No. CIC/PMOIN/A/2023/648281 CIC Hearing No. CIC/PMOIN/A/2023/655451 CIC Hearing No. CIC/NLSAT/A/2024/614247 CIC Hearing No. CIC/MHOME/A/2024/613013 Page 22 of 40 were all new 2nd appeals when compared to the 2nd appeal for RTI Application No. UGCOM/R/E/22/05704.
Hence, I want a copy of the document that shows the REASON why CIC is not conducting the 2nd appeal for the identity of the evaluators of answer sheets.
20.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
As per record available, no such information found.
20.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 28.06.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
20.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Hearing proceedings and Decisions :-
21. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the UGC, respondent, Mr. Anurag, Under Secretary, Mr. Lokesh Kumar Jangra, Under Secretary Mr. M K Meena, Under Secretary, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Under Secretary, Mr. Hira Lal, CPIO, Mr. Ajay Kumar Joshi, CPIO, (UGC), attended the hearing in-person. Further, on behalf of the NIT, Surthkal, respondent, Mr. Priyanka, Assistant Registrar Accounts and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, CPIO, attended the hearing in-person. Furthermore, on behalf of the Lokpal, respondent, Mr. Rohit Singh, S.O and on behalf of the CIC, respondent, Mr. S. K Chikara, DR to CIC, Ms. Suman Bala, DS & CPIO (RTI Cell) and Mr. Babu Lal, S.O, CR, attended the hearing in-person.
22. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that in the instant set of appeals the appellant is again seeking similar information to which the CPIO's concerned has furnished suitable replies, as per their available records, to the appellant Page 23 of 40 along with the relevant enclosures and these were decided vide appeal nos. CIC/UGCOM/A/2023/630585+7, CIC/NITST/A/2023/616481 and CIC/NITST/A/2023/615993 etc. Further, the Appellant has not been judicious in the use of the RTI Act and has been using it as a tool to harass the Public Authority. A relevant extract of the respondent's written submissions are reproduced as under:-
Written submission in file no. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/612175 "With reference to the above cited subject, it is submitted that reply to the online RTI application filed on 20.12.2023 by Sh. Srikanth Sreedhar was replied on 18.01.2024 attached with the Record Retention Schedule and reply to appeal dated 18.01.2024 was given on 07.02.2024 (copies attached). It is further informed that the requested documents are available in public domain and can be accessed on the link: https://darpg.gov.in/sites/default/files/RRS_WC.pdf. However, a copy of the required documents consisting of 101 pages is enclosed."
Written submission in file no. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/612389
1. The applicant sought a copy of Marks Ledger Sheet for Irrigation Design and Drawing from Mangalore University, Mangalagangothri, Mangalore 574 199, Karnataka. As the details of students admitted/passed are not maintained/held by UGC and such details are available with the University concerned only, the applicant was informed accordingly and also requested to approach the concerned University in this regard.
2. No additional information is available with the UGC in this regard. Written submission in file no. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/617474 "Please refer to CIC notice of hearing for appeal no. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/617474 dated 21.01.2025 on the subject cited above. I hereby inform you that the online RTI application dated 18.01.2024 of Shri Page 24 of 40 Srikanth Sreedhar which was received in the Section on 22.04.2024 has been replied by the CPIO on 23.04.2024.
Dissatisfied with the reply, the applicant filed an appeal 28.03.2024 which was received in the section on 01.04.2024 with the FAA. The FAA under section 19(6) the RTI Act, 2005 has disposed of the RTI appeal on 25.04.2024 Furthermore, it is informed UGC has issued guidelines on 11.04.2023 for (Redressal of grievances of students). These guidelines are available on the UGC website www.ugc.ac.in under the link: https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/4675881 Regulation.pdf which is self-explanatory. it is also informed that the ombudsperson are appointed by universities, you may approach the concerned university. List of defaulting universities that have not appointed the Ombudsperson(s) as provided in the UGC (Redressal of grievances of students) regulation, 2023 is available on UGC website under the link:
https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/9258687 UGC-letter-regarding-Updated-list-of- defaulting-Univesities-that-have-not-appointed-Ombudsperson(s) 0001.pdf (copy enclosed) Copies of the online submission with necessary enclosures have been uploaded on the Commission link."
Written submission in file no. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/627766 "Please refer to CIC notice of hearing for appeal no. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/627766 dated 21.01.2025 on the subject cited above. I hereby inform you that the online RTI application dated 06.06.2024 of Shri Srikanth Sreedhar which was received in the Section on 10.06.2024 has been replied by the CPIO on 18.06.2024.Page 25 of 40
Dissatisfied with the reply, the applicant filed an appeal 20.06.2024 which was received in the section on 21.06.2024 with the FAA. The FAA under section 19(6) the RTI Act, 2005 has disposed of the RTI appeal on 25.06.2024 Further, it is also informed that in reference to Central Information Commission(CIC) Notice No. CIC/BANHU/A/2017/110128-BJ dated 28th March, 2018, wherein Ministry of Human Resource Development was advised to issue directions to Vice Chancellors and Registrars of all Universities, a D.O. letter no. 9-27/2018 (CPP-II) dated 19th July, 2018 was issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) to Vice Chancellors/Registrars of all Universities to comply with the order of CIC, which is available on UGC website www.ugc.gov.in and is self-explanatory (copy enclosed).
Copies of the online submission with necessary enclosures have been uploaded on the Commission link."
Written submission in file nos. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/630951+ CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/634934 + CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/648761 +CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/656847+ CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/656848+ "Keeping in view position explained above, it is submitted that UGC already taken action to transfer the RTI/Appeal to Mangalore University as Well as National Institute of Technology, Karnataka and respective authority already given the reply to Sh. Srikanth Sreedhar and CIC also consider of the reply of Mangalore University as Well as National Institute of Technology, Karnataka after that given CIC decision accordingly.
In the light of above circumstance, it is suggested that RTI Act should not be allowed to be misused by the Appellant and it is humble request to clc that this matter not consider in future."Page 26 of 40
Written submission in file no. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/613730 "Please refer to CIC notice of hearing for appeal no. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/613730 dated 21.01.2025 on the subject cited above. I hereby inform you that the online RTI application dated 30.12.2023 of Shri Srikanth Sreedhar which was received in the Section on 22.04.2024 has been replied by the CPIO on 23.04.2024.
Dissatisfied with the reply, the applicant filed an appeal 31.01.2024 which was received in the section on 29.02.2024 with the FAA. The FAA under section 19(6) the RTI Act, 2005 has disposed of the RTI appeal on 31.05.2024 Furthermore, it is informed UGC has issued guidelines on 11.04.2023 for (Redressal of grievances of students). These guidelines re available on the UGC website www.ugc.ac.in under the link: https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/4695881 Regulation.pdf which is self-explanatory, it is also informed that the ombudsperson are appointed by universities, you may approach the concerned university. List of defaulting universities that have not appointed the Ombudsperson(s) as provided in the UGC (Redressal of grievances of students) regulation, 2023 is available on UGC website under the link:
https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/9258687 UGC-letter-regarding-Updated-list-of- defaulting-Univesities-that-have-not-appointed-Ombudsperson(s) 0001.pdf (copy enclosed) Copies of the online submission with necessary enclosures have been uploaded on the Commission link"Page 27 of 40
Written submission in file no. CIC/NITST/A/2024/619139 "1. I. Priyanka Dattanand Amadalli submit that I am working as Assistant Registrar (Accounts) and I am the present CPIO of the Public Authority NITK, Surathkal
2. 1 submit that the appellant /complainant Mr. Srikanth Sreedhar had submitted online RII application No. NITST/R/E/24/00014 dated 20.02.2024 and the information sought were follows:
I want in writing whether NITK has my marks ledger sheet for IRRIGATION DESIGN AND DRAWING., My hall ticket No. is 9502349. I am not asking for a copy of the MARKS LEDGER SHEET. Mangalore Univ has already confirmed to me that they sent to NITK both my Marks Card and Marks Ledger Sheet. So I KNOW that NITK has this information. I want to know if NITK accepts that they have this information or if NITK denies that NITK received this information from Mangalore Univ.
Either NITK accepts that NITK DESTROYED the information or NITK must disclose the information SUO MOTO.
1. I submit that a reply was given to the applicant by the concerned CPIO vide letter No. NITK/RTI You have not paid the RTI application fee. Sufficient proof of income is not provided to substantiate below poverty line status. Hence, your request is refused.
CPIO/OL-Appl. No. 32/2024 dated 05/93.2024, The information given was as follows:
2. Dissatisfied with the reply, the applicant had filed an appeal dated 17.03.2024 before the Fint Appellate Authority.Page 28 of 40
3. The First Appellate Authority UPHELD the reply given by the concerned CPIO vide order Na NITK/RTI-FAA/Appeal-222/2024 dated 18.04.2024 of the First Appellate Authority.
4. The Appellant/complainant now has approached Central Information Commission by filing Second Appeal to the Central Information Commission and as per the CIC hearing notice dated 21.01.2025 and the hearing is scheduled for 17.02.2025 at 11.15 AM.
5. It is submitted before the lon hic authority that the applicant is making repeated RTI applications on the same matter. The appellant has been repeatedly sending queries under KII and thereby misusing the RTI Act provisions. Reference is also invited vide CIC decision No. CIC/SA/A/2015/001849 dated 25.02.2016 and CIC/SA/A/2015/002028 dated 29.03.2016
6. in view of the above subincision, it is requested that the appeal of the appellant may kindly he rejected."
Written submission in file no. CIC/NITST/A/2024/619145 "1. I Priyanka Dattanand Amadalli submit that I am working as Assistant Registrar (Accounts) and I am the present CPIO of the Public Authority NITK, Surathkal.
2. 1 submit that the appellant /complainant Mr. Srikanth Sreedhar had submitted online R11 application No. NITST/R/E/24/00020 dated 02.03.2024 and the information sought were as follows:
QUOTE from DoPT RTI guidelines for SUO MOTU DISCLOSURE by Public Authority, viii, a statement of the boards, councils committees and other bodies consisting of new or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public of the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public. I want to know Page 29 of 40 who the COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE NITK must disclose this information After the death of Anand Pathak NITK set up a Committee to come to a conclusion. SUO MOTO and immediately.
1. I submit that a reply was given to the applicant by the concerned CPIO vide letter No. NITK/RTI-CPIO/OL-Appl. No. 45/2024 dated 05.03.2024, The information given was as follows:
You have not paid the RTI application fee. Sufficient proof of income is not provided to substantiate belove poverty line status. Hence, your request is refused.
2. Dissatisfied with the reply, the applicant had filed an appeal dated 17.03.2024 before the Fint Appellate Authority.
3. The First Appellate Authority UPHELD the reply given by the concerned CPIO vide order No NITK/RTI-FAA/Appeal-223/2024 dated 18.04.2024 of the First Appellate Authority,
4. The Appellant/complainant now has approached Central Information Commission by filing Second Appeal to the Central Information Commission and as per the CIC hearing notice dated 21.01.2075 and the hearing is scheduled for 17,02.2025 at 11.16 AM.
5. It is submitted before the Hon'ble authority that the applicant is making repeated RII applications on the same matter. The appellant has been repeatedly sending queries under KII and thereby misusing the RTI Act provisions. Reference is also invited vide CIC decision No. CIC/SA/A/2015/001849 dated 25.02.2016 and CIC/SA/A/2015/002028 dated 29.03.2016
6. In view of the above submission, it is requested that the appeal of the appellant may kindly be rejected."Page 30 of 40
Written submission in file no. CIC/NITST/A/2024/642378
1. I Priyanka Dattanand Amadalli submit that I am working as Assistant Registrar (Accounts) and I am the present CPIO of the Public Authority NITK, Surathkal
2. 1 submit that the appellant /complainant Mr. Srikanth Sreedhar had submitted online RTI application No. NITST/R/1/24/00017 dated 13.06.2024 and the information sought were as follows:
As police have stated that the cause of death of late NITK student Anand Pathak was attendance. I want all information that the Mok of Govt of India has shout the death of the student including the representation of Students to NITK after the death of the boy and any other details like who the committee members were that the NITK Director set up to receive the representation of the students and what decision NITK committee took and what subsequent action NITK Director took. If UGC has no information, then I request UGC to please state that UGC has no information.
1. I submitted that a reply was given to the applicant by the concerned CPIO vide letter No. NITKARTI CPIO/OL-Appl. No. 117/2024 dated 14.06.2024, The information given was as follows: You have not paid the RTI application fee.
Sufficient proof of income is not provided to substantiate below poverty line status. Hence, your request is refused.
2. Dissatisfied with the reply, the applicant had filed an appeal dated 09.09.2024 before the First Appellate Authority.
3. The First Appellate Authority PHELD the reply given by the concerned CPIO vide order N NITK/R FI-PAA/Appeal-237/2024 dated 12.09.2024 of the First Appellate Authority.
4. The Appellant/complainant now has approached (Central Information Commission by filing Second Appeal to the Central Information Commission and Page 31 of 40 as per the CIC hearing notice dated 21.01.200 and the hearing is scheduled for 17.02.2025 at 11.17 AM.
5. It is submitted before the Hon'ble authority that the applicant is making repeated RIT applications on the same matter. The appellant has been repeatedly sending queries under RTI and thereby misusing the R11 Act provisions. Reference is also invited vide CIC decision No. CIC/SA/A/2015/001849 dated 25.02.2016 and CIC/SA/A/2015/002028 dated 29.03.2016.
Written submission in file no. CIC/NITST/A/2024/642405 "5. It is submitted before the Hon'ble authority that the applicant is making repeated RIT applications on the same matter. The appellant has been repeatedly sending queries under RTI and theruby misusing the RTI Act provisions. Reference is also invited vide CIC decision Na CIC/SA/A/2015/001849 dated 25.02.2016 and CIC/SA/A/2015/002028 dated 29.03.2016.
6. In view of the above submission, it is requested that the appeal of the appellant may kindly be rejected."
Written submission in file no. CIC/DHEDU/A/2024/614830 "As a recently retired Supreme Court Judge has been appointed a Professor in Haryana despite retiring as a Judge at the age of 65 years, I want a copy of the Document that shows the SUPERANNUATION AGE for Professors in order to know if the Judge meets the criteria to be eligible for appointment as a Professor as the College where he has been appointed appears to be a State Govt college. I have respect for this Judge. Still, I want to know the Superannuation age for PROFESSORS to know if everything is in order."
4. Date of reply of CPIO (U.ll): 03.11.2023 Provided letter No.1-19/2006-U.ll dated 23.03.2007, By which this Ministry had enhanced the age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years for teaching positions in Page 32 of 40 centrally funded institutions in higher and technical education. (Sanjay Kumar) Under Secretary/ Central Public Information Officer
5. Date of First Appeal: No. DOHED/A/E123100334) dated 27.12.2023.
6. Date of reply of FAA: 08.02.2024. FAA's Order dated O8.02.2024 is enclosed
7. Relevant documents are attached herewith.
8. The above facts may kindly be considered while deciding the matter. Written submission in file no. CIC/DOP&T/A/2024/633044 With reference to the CIC Second Appeal Hearing Notice No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2034/633044 dated 21/01/2005, he appellant Shri Srikanth Sreedhar had led his original online RTI Application on 19/06/2034 whereby the appellant has sought status of his complaint sent to the O/o Lokpal of India through his E-mail dated 18/10/2013.
2. The CPIO vide his reply dated 16/07/2024, informed the appellant that the referred E-mail dated 18/10/2023 was a non-format complaint and as per the instant guidelines prevailing in Lokpal of India, no action is taken on the complaint forms which are not in the format and they are simply filed. The appellant was further informed that for consideration of any complaint by Lokpal of India, it is required to be made in accordance with the Lokpal (Complaint) Rules, 2020 and in the format prescribed under the said Rules. 3 Not satisfied with this response, the appellant filed the First Appeal on 16/07/2024 wherein he enquired as why he was not informed about the filing of his complaint. The First Appellate Authority in Lokpal of India, vide his Order dated 01/08/2024, disposed of the Appeal stating that it is not required under the RTI Act to solve the problems raised by the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions and the reply of the CPIO was appropriate.
Page 33 of 404 Now the appellant has filed this present Section Appeal stating that when he asked the status of the complaint, Lokpal refused to give file movement details. In this regard, it is stated that the allegation of the appellant is false as it can be seen that the CPIO has already clearly informed the appellant on 16/07/2014 that the referred E-mail dated 18/10/2023 was a non-format complaint and as per the instant guidelines prevailing in Lokpal of India, no action is taken on the complaint forum which are not in the format and they are simply filed. Further, the First Appeal of the appellant was also disposed of within the specified time limit.
5. In view of the aforementioned salmons, it la prayed that the present Second Appeal preferred by Shri Srikanth Sreedhar may be rejected me the ground that a saltate reply has already been provided to the appellant within the prescribed timeline.
Written submission in file no. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/622184 "Please refer to CIC Notice No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/622184 dated 21.01.2025 on the above subject fixing the hearing in the case on 17.02.2025 at 11.30 A.M. Shri Srikanth Sreedhar vide RTI application dated 24.03.2023 sought information regarding his second appeal CIC/DHOME/A/2022/610590, The appellant has stated in his RTI application that as per the decision dated 15.03.2023, no communication was received from him. He has further stated in his RTI application that all documents were submitted by him in his Second appeal dated 19.02.2022. It is submitted that it has been recorded in the decision CIC/DHOME/A/2022/610590 dated 15.03.2023 that "None of the parties are present for hearing and no communication has been received from either party conveying the cause of their absence or their contentions. The CPIO furnished reply to the Appellant on 10.04.2023 intimating him that his second appeal was received on 20.02.2022(copy enclosed). The Appellant filed first appeal dated Page 34 of 40 10.04.2023. The FAA, CIC vide order dated 03.05.2023 observed that as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collate information that is not part of the record. The FAA upheld the reply of the CPIO (Copy enclosed)."
Written submission in file no. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/623158
2. the reply already given by the then CPIO dated 30.04.2024 stands good and the same has been duly upheld by the 1st FAA in aforesaid case. Copy of the both the replies is resent herewith.
Written submission in file no. CIC/CICOM/A/2024/627886 "It is submitted that reply dated 20.05.2024 of the RTI application no. CICOM/R/E/2024/00567 dated 23.04.2024 which pertains to Dal Section has already been furnished by the CPIUO, Dak Section, CIC. (Copy enclosed) There is no further direction from the FAA to the CPIO in the first appeal."
23. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that that in all the cases the CPIO's concerned have provided appropriate replies to the RTI Applications as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letters dated 18.01.2024, 08.03.2024, 23.04.2024, 18.06.2024, 27.06.2024, 13.08.2024, 21.10.2024, 18.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 05.03.2024, 14.06.2024, 16.08.2024, 03.11.2023, 16.07.2024, 10.04.2023, 30.04.2024, 20.05.2024 The Commission also observes that in most of the instant cases the RTIs are repetitive and related to the Mangalore University and National Institute of Technology, Karnataka which has been decided by the Commission earlier. Further, in many RTI's applications the proper fee receipts/documents have not been enclosed. Moreover, in most of the RTI applications, the appellant has also sought clarification, opinion and reason, as also Page 35 of 40 requesting for non-specific information like 'All documents', if any, etc. which do not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011. The following was thus held:
"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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......."
24. The grounds of the appeals are also observed to be frivolous, bereft of merit and not sustainable. Furthermore, the Commission observes that the appellant is frequently filing RTI Applications on same or similar subject just to harass respondent public authority, which is purely against the spirit of the RTI Act. 2005. In this regard, attention of the appellant is drawn to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
'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. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public Page 36 of 40 interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility, and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.' Further, the findings of the Commission in the instant set of matter largely point towards a misuse of the RTI Act being perpetuated by the appellant. Here, the appellant's attention is again invited towards certain precedents set by the superior Courts recognizing the misuse of the RTI Act: In ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC781, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
'39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient Page 37 of 40 operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources.' In the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' And, in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that: '...xxx 'This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.'
25. The Commission strongly advises the appellant to desist from filing multiple RTI Applications as his future appeals/complaints on the same or similar matter are liable to be summarily dismissed. All the Respondent Authorities present for hearing are also advised to take reference of the instant decision while dealing with any future RTI Applications of the Appellant on the same subject matter. The Commission finds no scope for further intervention in the matters. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 24.02.2025 Page 38 of 40 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO University Grants Commission, CPIO, RTI Cell, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi -110002
2. The CPIO National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, CPIO, RTI Cell, Post-Sriniwas Nagar, Mangalore-575025
3. The PIO M/o. Education, Department of Higher Education, Dy. Secy. & CPIO (U.II/UT-HE), Shastri Bhawan, Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110001
4. The CPIO Lokpal Of India, CPIO, RTI Cell, Plot No- 6, Vasant Kunj Institutional Area, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110070
5. The CPIO Central Information Commission, CPIO, RTI Cell, Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067 Page 39 of 40
6. Srikanth Sreedhar Annexure of Second Appeals Sl. No. Second Appeal No. 1 CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/612175 2 CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/612389 3 CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/617474 4 CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/627766 5 CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/630951 6 CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/634934 7 CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/648761 8 CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/655322 9 CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/656847 10 CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/656848 11 CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/613730 12 CIC/NITST/A/2024/619139 13 CIC/NITST/A/2024/619145 14 CIC/NITST/A/2024/642378 15 CIC/NITST/A/2024/642405 16 CIC/DHEDU/A/2024/614830 17 CIC/DOP&T/A/2024/633044 18 CIC/CICOM/A/2023/622184 19 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/623158 20 CIC/CICOM/A/2024/627886 Page 40 of 40 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)