Central Information Commission
Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs National Institute Of Technology on 18 January, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/003039/6448
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003039
Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta
Lecturer, Mechanical Engr. Deptt.
National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra -136119
Respondent : Mr. G.R.Samantaray
Central Public Information Officer &
Dy. Registrar
National Institute of Technology
(Institute of National Importance),
Kurukshetra-136119
RTI application filed on : 09/07/2009
PIO replied : 30/07/2009
First Appeal filed on : 27/08/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 01/10/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 02/12/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 14/12/2009
Hearing Held on : 18/01/2010
Information sought:
Appellant sought certified (with date) readable copy (starting from cover page till last page including pages with Library facsimile) of the following information:
"Copy of M.Tech. Dissertation titled 'Production Planning Problems in Engineering Industry (A Goal Programming Approach)' submitted in 1991 in the Mechanical Engineering Department, Regional Engineering College, Kurushetra which is available in the Library, NIT Kurushetra with the details: Call No. Thesis-M,l 1991 Acc. No.540."
PIO's Reply:
The dissertation submitted by a candidate was a part of the examination. When answer papers were evaluated, the authority conducting the examination and examiners a evaluating the answers papers stand in a fiduciary relationship between each other Such relationship warrants maintenance of confidentiality by both of manner and method of evaluation. Finally PIO mentioned that the copy of the dissertation sought by the Appellant could not be supplied as the same is exempted.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply.
Appellant mentioned that he was issued same M.tech Dissertation from the Library on 09/07/2009. The CPIO, NIT Kurushetra refused to provide a certified copy of the same.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Page no. 1 of 3 FAA stated that sought information by the Appellant could not be provided.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Certified copy of the documents not provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 15 January 2010: "The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta;
Respondent: Absent;
The PIO has sent a letter on 07/01/2010 asking for an adjournment in the matter since there is another matter listed where the Respondent and Appellant are same. The hearing is adjourned to 18/01/2010 at 2.30pm."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 18 January 2010: The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta;
Respondent: Mr. G.R.Samantaray, Central Public Information Officer & Dy. Registrar;
The PIO states that all copies of the dissertation are kept in a library and these are available for every one to take a look. He also states that library users are permitted to get it issued and taken them with themselves. He has raised the issue of whether a person can use Right to Information to demand photocopies of the other books which are kept in the library. The appellant states that he had clearly indicated that he was making a charge of plagiarism since his contention is that the said thesis based on which an M.Tech has been awarded to Mr. Pankaj Chandna in 1991 is a complete copy of the thesis submitted by Mr. Yogesh Saxena as his M.Tech dissertation to IIT Delhi in 1982. The Appellant has produced a copy of Mr. Yogesh Saxena's dissertation as also a purported copy of the dissertation by Mr. Pankaj Chandna before the Commission. The Appellant further alleges that this dissertation by Mr. Pankaj Chandna was under the guidance of Prof. S.K.Sharma and that the copy in the library of the Institute has Mr. Sharma's signature with the date 04/05/1991 on the page of the dissertation.
Decision:
The RTI Act in preamble states, "AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Goverments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;" Thus one of the key objectives of the RTI Act is to improve transparency and contained corruption. The evidence before the Commission that has been present by the Appellant seems to show a very strong possibility of plagiarism which is one of the worst forms of corruption. It appears the Appellant has raised this within the Institute and the Appellant has also produced before the Commission newspaper cuttings in which these allegations of plagiarism have been mentioned. The news reports mention that the reporters had spoken to Mr. Pankaj Chandna, and Mr. J.K. Palit Chairman of the Board of Governors of NIT, Kurukshetra. Thus it appears that the Institute is well aware of this charge and perhaps does not wish to correct anything. The appellant has also produced before the Commission by Dy. Registrar of NIT, Kurukshetra of 07/09/2009 addressed to HRD Ministry in which the issued has also been mentioned. Section- 8(2) of the RTI Act states, "Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to Page no. 2 of 3 information, if public interests in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests." Thus even if an exemption clause of Section 8(1) applies larger public interest would dictate that the information must be disclosed. In the instant matter the Commission is not going into the issues of whether any exemption applies but feels there is adequate prima-facie evidence which shows the possibility of plagiarism. Hence the Commission decides that the attested photocopy of the dissertation of Mr. Pankaj Chadna must be give to the Appellant.
The appeal is allowed The PIO is directed to give the complete information to the appellant before 30 January 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 18 January 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj Page no. 3 of 3