Central Information Commission
Siddharth Joshi vs Indian Institute Of Management (Iim), ... on 16 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/IIMAH/A/2018/611225-BJ+
CIC/IIMAH/A/2018/611227-BJ+
CIC/IIMAH/A/2018/616957-BJ+
CIC/IIMAH/A/2018/616959-BJ
Mr. Siddharth Joshi,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Institute of Management,
Vastrapur,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380015
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 10.08.2018
Date of Decision : 16.08.2018
ORDER
RTI 1: CIC/IIMAH/A/2018/611225-BJ Date of RTI application 03.12.2017 CPIO's response 28.12.2017 Date of the First Appeal 03.01.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 24.01.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information relating to the copy of the inward register which keeps the records of the post and mail for the institute for the date 24.04.2017 to 25.04.2017.
The CPIO vide letter dated 28.12.2017 stated that only one mail was received. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 24.01.2018 disposed the Appeal stating that Appellant could visit their office and inspect the Inward register, if in doubt.
Page 1 of 6
RTI 2: CIC/IIMAH/A/2018/611227-BJ
Date of RTI application 03.12.2017
CPIO's response 01.01.2018
Date of the First Appeal 03.01.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 23.01.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information relating to the copy of the inward register which keeps the records of incoming post and mail for the institute for the date 28.04.2017 to 29.04.2017.
The CPIO vide letter dated 01.01.2018 stated that only one mail was received. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 23.01.2018 disposed the Appeal stating that Appellant could visit IIMA with advance intimation to CPIO to see the inward register, if in doubt.
RTI 3: CIC/IIMAH/A/2018/616957-BJ Date of RTI application 24.01.2018 CPIO's response 22.02.2018 Date of the First Appeal 27.02.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 24.03.2018 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information relating to the copy of the inward register which keeps the records of the post and mail for the institute for the date 24.04.2017 to 25.04.2017.
The CPIO vide letter dated 22.02.2018 stated that the response was already provided vide their letter dated 28.12.2017. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 24.03.2018 stated that the CPIO had mentioned the correct details of inward register for 24-25 April, 2017 and the Appellant could visit the IIMA with advanced intimation to the CPIO to see the inward register, if in doubt.
RTI 4: CIC/IIMAH/A/2018/616959-BJ
Date of RTI application 24.01.2018
CPIO's response 23.02.2018
Date of the First Appeal 27.02.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 24.03.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
Page 2 of 6
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information relating to the copy the inward register which keeps the records of the post and mail for the institute for the date 28.04.2017 to 29.04.2017.
The CPIO vide letter dated 23.02.2018 stated that the response was already provided vide letter dated 01.01.2018. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 24.03.2018 stated that the CPIO had mentioned the correct details of inward register for 28-29 April, 2017 and the Appellant could visit the IIMA with advanced intimation to the CPIO to see the inward register, if in doubt.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Siddharth Joshi through VC;
Respondent: Mr. K. V. Ramchandran, PIO and Mr. S. N. Rao, Head (HR) FAA's representative through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that he remained dissatisfied with the information furnished by the CPIO. The Respondent explained that a suitable reply had been sent by the CPIO/FAA and that in addition they had offered inspection of the inward register, if in doubt, which the Appellant did not avail off.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 30.07.2018 wherein while praying to adjourn the hearing to any date after 16.08.2018, it was stated that the FAA (Cdr. Manoj Bhatt) on the ground that he was out of country and would be back on 14.08.2018. The Dy. Registrar in the meanwhile had drawn the attention of the Respondent vide his email dated 02.08.2018 to point-07 of the notice of hearing wherein it was stated that no adjournment / review shall be permitted.
The Commission was in receipt of another Written Submission from the Respondent dated 01.08.2018, wherein it was stated that the Appellant had filed 74 RTI applications and 25 First Appeals during the last three years seeking voluminous information. In the absence of specific requests, it was difficult for the Institute to respond for such queries. Explaining that the Appellant was an FPM Student at Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, it was stated that he was publishing information related to IIM Ahmedabad in certain publications. On a number of occasions, he was requested to visit their institute to see the records but he did not turn up.
Moreover, in most of the cases, there was no larger public interest. While referring to the decision of the Chief Information Commissioner of Gujarat in Appeal No. 133/2006-07 dated 01.09.2016, it was stated that the applicant should specify specific subject, specific time period, specific details while requesting for the information under the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, a reference was also made to the decision of the Chief Information Commissioner Gujarat in SCA No. 16073/2007 dated 16.08.2007, decision of the Central Information Commission in CIC/OK/C/2007/00362 and 367 dated 05.06.2008, CIC/OK/A/2006/00605 dated 30.04.2007 and Page 3 of 6 Judgement No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001765 dated 24.04.2012 to submit that the applicant was filing RTI applications in order to disturb the working of the Public Authority.
Moreover, a specific submission was made by the Respondent in respect to the instant Second Appeal Nos.: - CIC/IIMAH/A/2018/611225-BJ + CIC/IIMAH/A/2018/616957-BJ wherein it was stated that a FAA had sent a reply dated 24.01.2018, requesting the applicant to visit and verify their records with prior communication to CPIO, if he was in doubt. However, unfortunately, the Appellant did not turn up for the inspection.
Moreover, a specific submission was made by the Respondent in respect to the instant Second Appeal No. (s): -CIC/IIMAH/A/2018/611227-BJ +CIC/IIMAH/A/2018/616959-BJ wherein it was stated that a FAA had sent a reply dated 24.01.2018, requesting the applicant to visit and verify their records with prior communication to CPIO, if he was in doubt. However, unfortunately, the Appellant did not turn up for the inspection.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:Page 4 of 6
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the 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."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Page 5 of 6Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
".............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country..........."
The Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim in the matter of Sancha Bahadur Subba vs. State of Sikkim W.P. (C) 31/2017 dated 30.04.2018 had held as under:
"30. What concludes therefore from the gamut of discussions herein above is that in a given case information pertaining to assets and liabilities can be disclosed with the rider that there must be larger public interest involved justifying such disclosure. As can be culled out from the averments and submissions, the Petitioner herein suspects that the Respondent No. 5 is in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, however mere suspicion without any prima facie material to substantiate it does not justify the disclosure of such information of the Respondent No. 5 as rests with the concerned government authority. This situation indeed appears to be a fishing expedition embarked upon by the Petitioner without any bona fide public interest. In these circumstances, it obtains that disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and falls under the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter The Commission however advised the Respondent to endorse a copy of their written submission to the Appellant, as well..
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 16.08.2018
Page 6 of 6