Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Pankaj Kumar Singh vs I I T (I S M) , Dhanbad on 29 November, 2024

                                  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. CIC/ISMDB/A/2023/112909

Pankaj Kumar Singh                                            ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम
CPIO: Indian Institute of
Technology (Indian School of                             ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Mines), Dhanbad

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 17.10.2022            FA       : 09.11.2022             SA     : 24.02.2023

CPIO : 05.11.2022           FAO : 28.11.2022                  Hearing : 21.11.2024


Date of Decision: 29.11.2024
                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                      ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:

 "This is to bring to your kind attention that a student named Eesha Verma, daughter of Braham Pal Singh has taken admission in L.L.B. at Law College, Dhanbad in the year 2016-17 (2016-19 batch) after submission of her original migration certificate. Her L.L.B. was completed in the year 2020 and on 05- FEB- 2021, the migration certificate SL. NO: L.L.B./Mig-1009252/20 was issued by Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal University, Dhanbad in the name of Eesha Verma, daughter of Braham pal Singh.

(copy of the migration certificate issued by Binod Bihari Mahto Koylanchal university, Dhanbad in the name of Eesha Verma is enclosed in Annexure-A). That however in the same time frame, the same student has taken admission in Executive MBA at IIT (ISM), Dhanbad in the year 2017-18 (2017-20 batch) wherein submission of original migration certificate, and experience certificate were mandatory. Her Executive MBA was completed in the year 2020 and on 24 August 2020 another migration certificate No: Acad/Migration/2020/0851 was issued by IIT (ISM), Dhanbad in the name of Eesha Singh, daughter of Dr. Braham Pal Singh. (Copy of the migration certificate issued by IIT (ISM), Dhanbad in the name of Eesha Singh is enclosed in Annexure-B). ......

(i) Action taken by the management for the forgery done by Eesha Singh at IIT(ISM), Dhanbad."

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"There is no document/information in the form of action taken report that is available on the matter.

In order to initiate an appropriate action on the matter, you may provide the clear photocopies of the original documents (submitted with your RTI application as annexures) to [email protected] on email."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 28.11.2022 stated as under:

"In view of comments of Dean (Acad) on the first appeal, the available, information/status of the case has been provided which being forwarded herewith except those exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act-2005."

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 24.02.2023.

5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Rajan Chaudhary, DR & Rep. of CPIO along with Prof. M.K Singh, Dean (Academics) & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and submitted that the Appellant is asking for action to be taken against a student based on his own apprehensions and RTI does not call for action to be taken but only for furnishing of information that is readily available.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that concededly, the Appellant has stated a factual narrative in the RTI Application and seeks for a certain action to be taken by the Respondent under the garb of asking for information. Pertinently so, even in the grounds of the second appeal the Appellant appears to be framing fresh queries after explaining at length the alleged forgery committed by the averred third party and seeks action by the Respondent against all such cases of forgery. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:

"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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;.."

In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter Page 3 of 6 of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:

"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........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. 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."

(Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"7....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 to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:

"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.

Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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;

The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."

(Emphasis Supplied)

8. Having observed as above, the Commission does not find any scope of intervention in the matter and advises the Appellant to pursue his grievance before the appropriate forum.

9. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 29.11.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, Nodal Officer (RTI), Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad, Jharkhand -826004

2. Pankaj Kumar Singh Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)