Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Pukhraj Meena vs Banaras Hindu University on 11 April, 2018

            CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
         Room No. 305, 3rd Floor, CIC Bhavan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka,
                        New Delhi-110067, website:cic.gov.in

                                 Appeal No.:-CIC/BANHU/A/2017/315179-BJ

Appellant          :            Mr. Pukhraj Meena,

Respondent         :      1-    CPIO,
                                Banaras Hindu University,
                                Ajagara, Banaras Hindu University Campus,
                                Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221005

                          2-    Registrar
                                Banaras Hindu University,
                                Ajagara, Banaras Hindu University Campus,
                                Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221005

Date of Hearing    :            10.04.2018
Date of Decision   :            11.04.2018

Date of RTI application                                             11.06.2016
CPIO's response                                                     Not on record
Date of the First Appeal                                            20.07.2016
First Appellate Authority's response                                Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission                25.10.2016

                                   ORDER

FACTS:

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the educational qualifications of Prof. D.C. Roy, certified copies of marks obtained by him in Secondary, Higher Secondary, U.G. P.G. and PhD. examinations, details of complaints made against the said professor regarding his P.G. PhD thesis and issues related thereto Dissatisfied on not receiving any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent;

Respondent: Absent;

Both the parties remained absent during the hearing, despite prior intimation. Mr. Ashish Wandhare and Mr. Jitendra, Network Engineers of NIC Studios at Dhule and Varanasi, respectively confirmed their absence. The Commission was in receipt of letter from O/o Registrar (Admin.) dated 27.03.2018 directing Asst. Registrar (Exams)/CPIO to attend the hearing but none appeared in this case. On perusal of the records, it was observed that neither the CPIO nor the FAA had replied.

The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.

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."

The Appellant was not present to contest the submission of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, it is evident that no reply had been provided by the Respondent in the matter, which is a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, instructs the CPIO/Registrar to showcause why action should not be taken under the provisions of the Act for this misconduct and negligence. The Commission therefore, directs the respondent to:

1- provide a reply to the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 10 days; 2- explain why penal action should not be taken as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, within 15 days;

from the date of receipt of this order. The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.

(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:

(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Copy to:

1- The Secretary, Department of Higher Education, MHRD, 127-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 (with the instruction to ensure that the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 were implemented forthwith and that a suitable advisory should be issued to the Vice Chancellor of the University.) 2- The Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh - 221005 (with the instruction to convene meetings to sensitize the officials of the University about the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and ensure its strict compliance. ) Page 3 of 3