Central Information Commission
Harjeet Singh Chawla vs University Grants Commission on 21 September, 2022
CIC/UGCOM/A/2021/125808
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/UGCOM/A/2021/125808
In the matter of:
Harjeet Singh Chawla ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
University Grants Commission,
Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi -110002
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 09.01.2021
CPIO replied on : 29.01.2021
First Appeal filed on : 03.03.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 23.03.2021
Second Appeal received on : 02.07.2021
Date of Hearing : 20.09.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Harjeet Singh Chawla, participated in the hearing through
video conferencing from NIC Baloda Bazar
Respondent: Smt. Shashi Malik, Under Secretary (Pay Scale Section) and
Shri Manjit, UDC, participated in the hearing in person.
Page 1 of 6
CIC/UGCOM/A/2021/125808
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 09.01.2021 seeking information on the following three points:
Shri Shashi Malik, Under Secretary/PIO, University Grants Commission, New Delhi vide letter dated 29.01.2021, informed to the Appellant as under:Page 2 of 6
CIC/UGCOM/A/2021/125808 Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.03.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.03.2021, informed as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for and he also requested the bench to award Compensation.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application. He further expressed his desire for certified copy of the document sought in point no. 3 of the instant RTI Application.
The Respondent submitted that after providing a timely response to the Appellant qua the instant RTI Application vide letter dated 29.01.2021 and 23.03.2021, she has provided an elaborated and point-wise reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 16.09.2022. She further added that the averred Statute No. 28 is a College code and the same is not related to their office and accordingly they have given the relevant UGC regulation to the Appellant. She further added that with respect to point no. 3 of the RTI Application, the requisite document is available on their website in public domain and accordingly she has given the relevant website link.Page 3 of 6
CIC/UGCOM/A/2021/125808 A written submission has been received by the Commission from Smt. Shashi Malik , Under Secretary, UGC , and the same has been marked to the appellant vide letter dated 16.09.2022, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under.
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that after providing a timely response to the Appellant qua the instant RTI Application vide letter dated 29.01.2021 and 23.03.2021, the Respondent has provided an elaborated and point-wise reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 16.09.2022 and the Commission upholds the same. The Commission further observes that with respect to point no. 3 of the instant RTI Application, the Appellant is seeking copy of document which is already in public domain and in this regard, the Commission finds it pertinent to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India v/s.
R.S. Misra vide W.P. (C) 3530/2011, decided on 21.11.2017, wherein it was held as under:
"58. A Division Bench of this Court in Prem Lata CPIO Trade Marks Registry, Delhi Vs. Central Information Commission & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7604 in the context of accessing information from the Registrar of Trade Marks was concerned with the question whether information suo- motu being Page 4 of 6 CIC/UGCOM/A/2021/125808 made available by a public authority through means of information including intervals in fulfillment of obligations under Section 4 of the Act can be requested for under Section 6 of the Act. For detailed reasons therein, it was held that neither can information already suo-motu made available by the public authority in discharge of obligations under Section 4(b) be requested for under Section 6 of the RTI Act nor the CPIO was required to reject the said request giving reasons. It was held that the purport of the RTI Act is to make the information available to the public at large and the same can be deciphered also from Section 44 of the RTI Act providing for dissemination of information in a cost effective and easy mode to the extent possible. Consequently, information which is already available under any other statutory mechanism will not be covered under the provision of the RTI Act.
59. In the present case, maintaining two parallel machinery: one under SCR and the other under the RTI Act, would clearly lead to duplication of work and unnecessary expenditure, in turn leading to clear wastage of human resources as well as public funds. Also, request for hard copies of information (as contemplated under Section 7 of the RTI Act) in respect of those information which are already available and accessible in the public domain, under the mechanism contemplated under the SCR, will further lead to unnecessary diversion of resources and conflict with other public interest which includes optimal use of limited fiscal resources."
Keeping in view the aforesaid ratio of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the Commission upholds the stance taken by the Respondent during the hearing. Hence, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 20.09.2022 Page 5 of 6 CIC/UGCOM/A/2021/125808 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) University Grants Commission, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi -110002
2. The Central Public Information Officer University Grants Commission, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi -110002
3. Mr. Harjeet Singh Chawla Page 6 of 6