Chitresh Kumar vs Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 20 May, 2021

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Chitresh Kumar vs Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 20 May, 2021

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                               के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                            बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


File No: CIC/JNUND/A/2019/160761

Chitresh Kumar                                          .....अपीलकता /Appellant



                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम


CPIO,
Jt. Registrar,(Admission Branch)
Jawaharlal Nehru University, RTI
Cell, Room No. 133, RTI Cell, Admn.
Block, New Delhi - 110067.                         .... ितवादीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                  :    20/05/2021
Date of Decision                 :    20/05/2021

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on        : 17/09/2019
CPIO replied on                 : 03/10/2019
First appeal filed on           : 10/10/2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated      : 03/12/2019



Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.09.2019 seeking information as follows:-

".....िच ेश कु मार के िलिखत िशकायत क रपोट म समान अवसर को से मु े क चचा करने क सलाह दी गई है, (सतलज छा ावास के अधी'क( )ारा) | कृ पया यह सूचना दान करने क कृ पा कर ,क यह सलाह ,कन जाँचो, ,कन सबूत(, ,कन के िन/कष1 के आधार पर दी गई है |"

The CPIO replied to the Appellant on 03.10.2019 stating that information sought is not clear so as to provide.

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.10.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present. (Despite repeated calls to the Appellant on his contact number as indicated in the Second Appeal, but the same was not reachable) Respondent: Represented by Dr. Sajjan Singh, Assistant Registrar & CPIO, IHA along with Dr. Asheesh Kumar,Senior Warden & Faculty Member, Vakil Ahmad, Security Inspector.

At the outset, Dr. Asheesh Kumar narrating the factual background submitted that the Appellant is a student of 'Centre for Social Medicine and Community Health' and joined JNU in 2018 and was allotted Sutlej Hostel,JNU. He added that the Appellant initially filed a complaint addressed to the Dean of Students,JNU with a copy to Senior Warden against 21 students alleging that he was being victimized and harassed by them on caste, creed and colour . He further submitted that however, looking into the gravity of the allegation, a Committee was set up comprising of warden and other higher authorities of JNU to investigate in to the matter. They conducted the enquiry and submitted the reports on 11.03.2019 & 05.07.2019 with the findings that the Appellant has failed to prove the accusations and no charges were proved against the said 21 2 students. He further submitted that a copy of the said enquiry report was also shared with the Appellant which itself is self-explanatory and addresses the issues flagged in his RTI application. He further added that taking an empathetic view , the Committee , in fact, had recommended that the Appellant be counseled and shifted to the alternate hostel.

Dr. Sajjan Singh submitted that protocols of Sutlej Hostel are governed by the Rules and policies framed by IHA (Inter- Hostel Accommodation), JNU . He further added that Appellant is an habitual RTI applicant and has perhaps some personality issues which provokes him to file numerous complaints without any substance. However, all his complaints/ RTI applications were properly addressed and responded and in fact, in one of the cases, even a committee was constituted to investigate into the issues raised by the Appellant and the outcome of the enquiry report was shared with the Appellant.

Rep. of CPIO submitted that timely response to the RTI Application was given and it was also informed to the Appellant that the queries raised by him in the RTI Application are not covered under the category of "information" as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

The current milieu of the COVID pandemic has necessitated the Commission to take some extraordinary steps in the disposal of cases to avoid further backlog and delays subverting the very purpose of RTI Act which includes inter alia hearing cases through audio conferencing. The instant case being one such instance where even so the Appellant could not be heard, the Commission deems it fit to decide the case based on merits after hearing submissions of the Respondent.

The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record observes that the query raised by the Appellant is rather speculative and about seeking clarification which does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter 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.

This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant. 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) Nonetheless, the CPIO has provided adequate reply and clarifications during the hearing as per the RTI Act, thus, leaving no further scope of intervention at this stage.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.




                                                        Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन)
                                                                              हािन)
                                           Information Commissioner (सूचनाआय
                                                                         ना    ु त))
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स%यािपत ित)

(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
 दनांक /


                                            4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission