Central Information Commission
Manish Aggarwal vs Indian Institute Of Management (Iim), ... on 22 November, 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/IIMAH/A/2020/673222
Manish Aggarwal ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Institute of Management
Ahmedabad, RTI Cell,
Vastrapur, Ahmedabad-380015. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/11/2021
Date of Decision : 18/11/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24/04/2020
CPIO replied on : 29/04/2020
First appeal filed on : 29/04/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 29/05/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
1The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 24.04.2020 seeking the following information;
1. (i) Who was the internal auditor appointed by the Board in accordance with Chapter IV, Section 25 of IIM Act 2017, in FY 2017-18. (ii) What was his remuneration decided by the Board as per the IIM Act 2017 in FY 2017-18.
(iii) How much was the total expenditure on the internal auditor paid by the Institute, and its breakup under the heads (travel, remuneration, boarding, lodging, hospitality, etc.) in FY 2017-18.
2. (i) Who was the internal auditor appointed by the Board in accordance with Chapter IV, Section 25 of IIM Act 2017, in FY 2018-19. (ii) What was his remuneration decided by the Board as per the IIM Act 2017 in FY 2018-19.
(iii) How much was the total expenditure on the internal auditor paid by the Institute, and its breakup under the heads (travel, remuneration, boarding, lodging, hospitality, etc.) in FY 2018-19.
3. (i) Who was the internal auditor appointed by the Board in accordance with Chapter IV, Section 25 of IIM Act 2017, in FY 2019-20. (ii) What was his remuneration decided by the Board as per the IIM Act 2017 in FY 2019-20.
(iii) How much was the total expenditure on the internal auditor paid by the Institute, and its breakup under the heads (travel, remuneration, boarding, lodging, hospitality, etc.) in FY 2019-20.
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 29.04.2020 stating as follows:-
"We have received 18 RTI applications from you between April 11, 2020 to April 24, 2020. Due to COVID-I9 lock down in the city all the offices except essential services are closed at IIM Ahmedabad. At present it is not feasible to provide the sought information to you. Further the information sought by you mainly relates to your personal grievance with your ex-employer IIMA and does not have any public interest. Hence under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005, all your applications are hereby disposed off."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2020. FAA's order dated 29.05.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of denial of information by the CPIO and further harped on the fact that information sought is public in nature.
2Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent: Represented by Venkateswara Alaparthi Rao, Associate Vice President, HR Office present through audio-conference.
The Appellant stated that he was one of the former faculties of the IIM, Ahmedabad and vehemently contested his grievance regarding the information sought about the details of the internal auditor and also raised adverse comments on the functioning of the Institution as also alleged wrong doings on the part of the Director of the Respondent organization. He also expressed his dissatisfaction with the denial of information by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act by a single stereotyped common draft reply in response to all his 18 different RTI Application(s). He further harped on the fact that the CPIO has failed to appreciate and comprehend that the information sought in all separate RTI applications differs and very well covered under the ambit of information in terms of RTI Act.
The CPIO in rebuttal of Appellant's contention denied all the allegations raised by the Appellant and further reiterated the contents of his reply. He further apprised the Commission that the information sought by the Appellant revolves around his grievance against the IIM, Ahmedabad regarding his service matter which has already been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court.He furthermore apprised the Commission that the records of desired information as sought for in all RTI Applications have already been provided to the Appellant by the Respondent. However, he agreed to abide by the directions of the Commission.
Decision:
At the outset, the instant RTII application is being heard together with the other 17 Appeals/Complaints of the Appellant. In this regard, the Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of the parties is of the considered view that a cyclostyle common reply provided by the CPIO by clubbing 17 other RTI applications of the Appellant; ignoring the fact that the queries raised by the Appellant in all the RTI applications are distinguishable, was not appropriate in terms of RTI Act.3
The said conduct of the CPIO was rather evasive and amounts to causing unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information. The CPIO was expected to have applied his mind while responding to each RTI Application separately by coupling it with relevant available information in consonance with the spirit of RTI Act and/or ought to have intimated the Appellant regarding availability/non-availability of information. Further, he should have informed the Appellant the applicability of relevant exemption clause of Section 8/9 of RTI Act in response to each RTI Application, wherever applicable.
In view of the above, the CPIO is hereby cautioned to exercise due diligence while responding to the RTI Applications individually, failing which penal action may be attracted against him under Section 20 of RTI Act in future.
Now, as regards the relief sought in the instant matter is concerned, the Commission further observes upon a close scrutiny of RTI Application that majority of the information sought by the Appellant pertains to personal information of third parties which is squarely hit by Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. However, some of the information sought viz. monthly remuneration and/or total expenditure paid to the internal auditor are covered under suo-moto disclosure of the RTI Act.
Having observed as above, the CPIO is directed to revisit the contents of the instant RTI Application and provide a revised point wise categorical reply along with relevant available information keeping in view the provisions of the RTI Act without divulging the personal information of third parties disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The severance of records maybe carried out by the CPIO in consonance with Section 10 of RTI Act. The aforesaid reply and information shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant through speed post and email within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स%यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5