Central Information Commission
Chitresh Kumar Banjare vs Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on 23 July, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
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/2020/670065
Chitresh Kumar ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
RTI Cell, Room No. 133, (Admn Block),
New Delhi - 110067. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/07/2021
Date of Decision : 22/07/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12/01/2020
CPIO replied on : 27/01/2020& 03/02/2020
First appeal filed on : 11/02/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 06/03/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 28/03/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.01.2020 seeking following information;
The CPIO forwarded the RTI application to Dy. Registrar, Room No. 234, Admn. Block, JNU on 27.01.2020 for providing information directly to the appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.02.2020.
Subsequently, the CPIO/Dy. Registrar, Room No. 234, Admn. Block, JNU, New Delhi on 03.02.2020 furnished a reply to the appellant, which is as follows:-
With regard to his first appeal, FAA's order dated 06.03.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO and resent the copy of same to the Appellant. Further, FAA also stated that for further clarification/information, appellant is advised to contact the office of Shri Gagandeep Singh, CPIO, Accounts Section, JNU on any working day.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-2
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Sanjeev Kumar, Director (CIS) & Nodal CPIO, JNU present through audio-conference.
The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO alleging it to be misleading and vehemently urged corruption in all the affairs of the University.
Per contra, the CPIO reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 15.07.2021, relevant portion of which is reproduced below in verbatim -
1. "The RTI application was received in the University on 12.01.2020.
2. The RTI application was processed and forwarded to the concerned CPIO of the University i.e. CPIO, Budget & Grants, JNU vide letter dated 27.01.2020, to provide the information directly to the applicant. Therefore, the reply/information has been directly provided to the applicant vide CPIO, Budget & Grants letter dated 03.02.2020.
3. Shri Chitresh Kumar has made an Appeal which was received in the University on 11.02.2020. However, the appellant neither provide the copy of RTI application nor the RTI ID. Accordingly, the appellant was informed vide letter dated 19.02.2020 to provide the copy of RTI application or RTI ID. On receipt of reply from Shri Chitresh Kumar, the appeal was processed and forwarded to the CPIO, Accounts Section on 21.02.2020 to provide the desired information as soon as possible. Therefore, the reply/information received from CPIO, Accounts Section vide note dated 03.03.2020 was sent to the appellant vide FAA letter dated 04.03.2020 (containing 02 pages), with a request to contact the office of CPIO, Accounts Section for any clarification in this regard."
Decision:
The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on records observes that although reply given by CPIO adequately suffices the information sought for by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act, however upon the insistence of Appellant, CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply inviting attention of the Appellant towards the specific hyperlink of website of JNU from where the desired information can be accessed. The said reply shall be provided free of cost 3 by the CPIO to the Appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The Commission based upon a perusal of the facts on record observes that the reply provided by the CPIO adequately suffices the information sought for by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Further, the issues raised by the Appellant regarding the veracity of the information provided by the CPIO and alleged corruption in the working of JNU are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act and the superior Courts have made observations to this effect in a catena of judgments over the course of time.
In particular, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter ofHansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."(Emphasis Supplied) While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:4
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."(Emphasis Supplied) And, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer vs. Gurpreet Kaur (W.P.[C] 2113/2019) dated 21.10.2019 has placed reliance on the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Namit Sharma's case to emphasize as under:
"8. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the powers of the Commission are confined to the powers as stated in the RTI Act...."
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5