Central Information Commission
Saleem Baig vs University Grants Commission on 19 July, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 305, 3rd Floor, CIC Bhavan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067, website:cic.gov.in
Appeal No.: -CIC/UGCOM/A/2017/144169-BJ
Appellant : Mr. Saleem Baig
Respondent : CPIO,
UGC, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi- 110002
Date of Hearing : 17.07.2018
Date of Decision : 19.07.2018
Date of RTI application 28.03.2017
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 13.05.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on Record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 29.06.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding certified copy of name, address, founder, management committee by-laws, balance sheet for 3 years, chief functionary of the private aided/ unaided universities, private aided/unaided minority universities, operating during the period from 02.01.1986 - 31.12.2016 in the state of Manipur (details of 01 university provided) who had applied to UGC for grant, aforementioned details of universities who had obtained the grant, universities who got rejected, reason for rejection, year-wise list of private universities operating under UGC who were given grant. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAAs order if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Saleem Baig through VC;
Respondent: Mrs. Kundla Mahajan, US, UGC and Mr. Puneet Kumar, LDC, UGC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that despite his consistent pleas to obtain information in respect of the aforesaid issues for various Central, State and Private Universities, no satisfactory Page 1 of 7 reply had been received from the UGC. It was submitted that he made several visits to the officials in UGC but failed to elicit any response. Replying to the queries raised by the Appellant, the Respondent stated that since a large number of RTI applications on similar issues for different State Universities had been received in their office, a consolidated reply was sent to the Appellant on 28.04.2017 advising him to approach the concerned Universities directly. The Commission was informed that the FAA had also given a point-wise reply on 28.06.2017. The Appellant however, denied receipt of any reply in this regard. Elaborating further, it was informed that he was carrying out research program to prepare a consolidated directory of all the Universities and the Grants received, list of functionaries etc. and other related issues for the benefit of Public at large. Disheartened by the non-receipt of any cogent reply, he approached the Commission to seek its intervention for facilitation for obtaining the said information. It was categorically stated during the hearing that the website of the UGC and the concerned State Govt./Private Universities did not contain any details. The Respondent however conveyed that basic details regarding names of the University and the date of establishment of the University was available on their website. However, the reply sent to the Appellant was not expressive enough to satisfy his queries.
The Commission however, observed that although separate postal orders had been appended with each RTI application the Respondent treated the matter very casually without attending to the spirit of the queries raised by the Appellant. Being an eminent institution of Govt. of India, it was not expected of it to treat the RTI queries in a casual and callous manner and brushing it aside without application of mind.
The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing Page 2 of 7 transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;Page 3 of 7
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Sayyed Education Society v. State of Maharashtra, WP 1305/2011 dated 12.02.2014 had held that public authorities are under a statutory obligation to maintain records and disseminate as per the provisions of the Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005. The High Court in this respect, held as under:
"Needless to state that as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 14 in the case of CBSE and Another (supra), Public Authorities are under an obligation to maintain records and disseminate the information in the manner provided under Section 4 of the RTI act. The submission of the petitioner that it is an onerous task to supply documents, therefore is required to be rejected. The Law mandates preserving of documents, supplying copies thereof to the applicant, in our view, cannot be said to be an onerous task."
Above all the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 had held as under:
"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."
Furthermore, in this context a reference was also made to the OM no. No.1/6/2011-IR dated 15.04.2013 issued by the DoP&T pertaining to guidelines for the implementation of suo motu disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public Page 4 of 7 authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
Furthermore, The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the decision J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 while stating that the CPIO should not mechanically forward the information collected through subordinates, held as under that:
"7.it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act. The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure. A responsible officer cannot escape his responsibility by saying that he depends on the work of his subordinates. The PIO has to apply his own mind independently and take the appropriate decision and cannot blindly approve / forward what his subordinates have done.
9. This Court in Mujibur Rehman Vs. Central Information Commission MANU/DE/0542/2009 held that information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for and are not to be driven away through filibustering tactics and it is to ensure a culture of information disclosure that penalty provisions have been provided in the RTI Act. The Act has conferred the duty to ensure compliance on the PIO. This Court in Vivek Mittal Vs. B.P. Srivastava MANU/DE/4315/2009 held that a PIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information; that the Act as framed casts obligation upon the PIO to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied. Even otherwise, the settled position in law is that an officer entrusted with the duty is not to act mechanically. The Supreme Court as far back as in Secretary, Haila Kandi Bar Association Vs. State of Assam 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 736 reminded the high ranking officers generally, not to mechanically forward the information collected through subordinates. The RTI Act has placed confidence in the objectivity of a person appointed as the PIO and when the PIO mechanically forwards the report of his subordinates, he betrays a casual approach shaking Page 5 of 7 the confidence placed in him and duties the probative value of his position and the report."
The Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the matter of Block Development Officer, Paonta Sahib vs. State Information Commission and Anr., CWP No. 6072 of 2012 dated 27.06.2018 upheld the following observations made by the State Information Commission, Himachal Pradesh:
"Thus at this stage of receipt of application at the level of the PIO the question of the jurisdiction was not involved. Even his own conduct by way of returning the application to the applicant proves that he never had in mind the jurisdiction of public authorities vis-a-vis the sought information. Section 20(1) of RTI Act provides for imposition of penalty where State Information Commission at the time of deciding any complaint is of the opinion that the PIO has "without any reasonable cause" refused to receive an application for information. The present PIO also refused to receive the application when he returned the same to be submitted to another PIO whereas he should have transferred the same to concerned PIO as mentioned above. However, keeping in view the first contention of the PIO that original RTI application was returned in original by his subordinates without keeping an office copy is accepted and for this lapse on the part of his subordinate he cannot be penalized. But question arises as to how much weight-age for this contention be given to consider the imposition of penalty. This should not be more than 50% of the penalty worked out for the delay of 56 days after the direction of the Commission and accordingly a penalty of Rs. 7000/- is imposed upon him........................"
The Commission also observed that there is a complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
DECISION Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, it was evident that the CPIO failed to respond timely in each of the applications filed by the Appellant. No reference number etc. was indicated Page 6 of 7 to facilitate the flow of information in respect of the RTI application under consideration. The Respondent admitted the casual approach in responding to the RTI application beyond the stipulated time limit Simultaneously the CPIO is directed to ensure that a precise and specific reply to each of the applications is sent to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Respondent Public Authority is also instructed to ensure updation of its website and a similar direction be issued to the State Universities/UGC affiliated Universities also in this regard for the ease and convenience of the general public. The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Copy to:
1- The Secretary, D/o Higher Education, M/o HRD, 127-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001 2- The Chairman, University Grants Commission (UGC) Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002.
3- The Secretary, University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, ITO, Metro Gate No. 3, New Delhi-110002 (with the advice that suitable instructions be given to its staff to ensure the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005 in letter and spirit.) Page 7 of 7