CIC/SA/A/2015/000933
2. Appellant by his RTI application dated 2062015 had sought for copy of the relevant record of the EFL Univeristy, Hyderabad based on which Registrar, EFL University has, in the letter CIC/SA/A/2015/000933,935,949,1023,1062,1064,1082,1083 Page 1 dated 13.10.2014 came to the conclusion, that the information from the department about the requirement is a condition precedent to issue the offer of appointment in the vacancy caused due to resignation of the incumbent within one year of his date of joining the post and copy of the relevant, rules and regulations. Having received no reply, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming non furnishing of information appellant approached the Commission. CIC/SA/A/2015/000935
3. Appellant by his RTI application dated 1042015 had sought information regarding his representation dated 11.12.2014 addressed to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, MHRD which had been sent to the Registrar of English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad. Having received no information, appellant made first appeal. PIO, thereafter, replied on 09.06.2015 wherein he stated that it was personal information of Dr. Manjusha Srivastava and it was third party information. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming nonfurnishing of information, appellant approached Commission. CIC/SA/A/2015/000949
4. Appellant by his RTI application 1042015 had sought for copy of the relevant note file of the EFL University, wherein the ViceChancellor has approved the Counter affidavit filed by Professor P. Madhavan, the Registrar, the English and Foreign Language University before the Honble High Court in W.P No. 4856 of 2012, whether the University rule under clause 1.1.4 General Conditions of Service, which clause is applicable to nonteaching post in EFL University, Hyderabad etc. PIO, thereafter, replied on 09.06.2015 wherein he stated that it was personal information of Dr Manjusha Srivastava and it was third party information. Being unsatisfied, appellant has filed first appeal. Claiming nonfurnishing of information, appellant approached Commission. CIC/SA/A/2015/001023
5. Appellant by his RTI application dated 242015 had sought for information regarding the letter of the Registrar, English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad dated 13.10.2014 CIC/SA/A/2015/000933,935,949,1023,1062,1064,1082,1083 Page 2 wherein he informed the MHRD that the reserve panel was valid for one year and had to be operated within the available 6 days and in the absence of information from the department about the requirement, it was not practically possible to issue the offer of appointment within 6 days by following the due procedure. PIO, thereafter, replied on 09.06.2015 wherein he stated that it was personal information of Dr Manjusha Srivastava and it was third party information. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming nonfurnishing of information, appellant approached Commission. CIC/SA/A/2015/001062
6. Appellant through his RTI application 2942015 sought to know following information: a. Whether there is any rule in the university statutes, ordinances rules & regulations prescribing procedure to fill the vacancy of a teaching post arising due to acceptance of resignation by the incumbent within a period of one year. b. Details of the procedure prescribed in the university statutes, ordinances rules & regulations to fill the vacancy of a teaching Post arising due to acceptance of the resignation etc. CPIO denied information under setion 8(1)(j). Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming nonfurnishing of information, appellant approached Commission. CIC/SA/A/2015/001064
7. The appellant by his RTI application dated 942015 sought information from the respondent authority regarding rules and regulations in which failing which was mentioned. CPIO denied information under section 8(1)(j). Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming non furnishing of information, appellant approached Commission. CIC/SA/A/2015/001082 CIC/SA/A/2015/000933,935,949,1023,1062,1064,1082,1083 Page 3
8. Appellant through his RTI application dated 942015 sought copy of note file of the EFL University wherein order issued by the VC appointing Sri M. Satyanarayan Goud as Standing Council of English & Foreign Languages University, copy of his appointment office order, month wise details of expenditure incurred by the EFL University towards professional fee paid to Sri M. S. Goud etc. PIO denied information under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming nonfurnishing of information, appellant approached Commission. CIC/SA/A/2015/001083
9. Appellant through his RTI application 942015 sought copy of note file of the EFL University wherein order issued by the VC to obtain pointwise legal opinion from Sri M. Satyanarayan Goud, advocate, as standing Council of English & Foreign Languages University, copy of RTI rules under which application referred to him and expenditure incurred in obtaining legal opinion. PIO denied information under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed first appeal. Claiming nonfurnishing of information, appellant approached Commission. DECISION: CIC/SA/A/2015/000933 CIC/SA/A/2015/000935 CIC/SA/A/2015/000949 CIC/SA/A/2015/001023 CIC/SA/A/2015/001062 CIC/SA/A/2015/001064 CIC/SA/A/2015/001082 CIC/SA/A/2015/001083
10. Both the parties made their submissions through video conference from Rangareddy. The appellant submitted that he had made complaint against 5 professors of the respondent university along with documentary evidence. No action was taken by the university. He wanted the basis on which a letter dated 13102014 was written by the Public Authority to the CIC/SA/A/2015/000933,935,949,1023,1062,1064,1082,1083 Page 4 MHRD and relevant rules and regulations by which the Vice Chancellor is having discretion to appoint a lawyer for dealing with the RTI cases and the expenditure incurred on the same so far.
11. In response to this the respondent officers submitted that the appellants case relate to his wife Dr. Manjusha Srivastava who was not considered for a faculty position in the University. They also submitted that this relates to third party information, the appellant was denied the same. They have also quoted a CIC order in this connection, wherein the CIC had stated that Public interest cannot be overlooked, when an RTI application was purely motivated by personal interest and the Public authority cannot compromise its ability to defend its case before the Court, if disclosing information involves such a risk.
12. The issue before the Commission is whether the details about appointment of standing counsel and expenditure incurred can be shared under RTI with the applicant? Whether this information is categorized as information given in fiduciary capacity and hence denied? Similarly another issue related to this aspect is whether legal opinion rendered by the standing counsel to the client University is also be considered as given under fiduciary capacity and hence be denied?
13. Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says that no barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, unless with his clients express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or the condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment. Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure
1) any such communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose, CIC/SA/A/2015/000933,935,949,1023,1062,1064,1082,1083 Page 5
2) any fact observed by any barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil in the course of his employment as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment.
14. If a court summons under section 91 of crpc, the document has to be produced. Section 129 is counterpart to Section 126. Section 129 lays down that no litigant shall be compelled to disclose to the Court any confidential communication which has taken place between him and his legal professional adviser, unless he offers himself as a witness, in which case he may be compelled to disclose any such communications as may appear to the Court necessary to be known in order to explain any evidence which he has given, but no others. However, it is the privilege of client, and only when client in writing gives up the privilege as per section 128 Evidence Act, it could be used as evidence.
15. Section 22, RTI Act, stated that this Act shall have an overriding effect. The text is: "22. Act to have overriding effect. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act."
16. In case of Vinod Sunder R vs Department Of Space, decided on 20 March, 2012, File No. CIC/LS/A/2011/0003523 and other 17 cases, CIC Mr M L Sharma, held that obviously, the nonobstante clause of the subsequent law i.e., S 22 of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of S 124 & 126 of the Evidence Act.
17. In this case appellant wanted the copy of legal advice sought by the Department from the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Additional Solicitor General. The Department pleaded exemption under 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, stating that the advice from Additional Solicitor General is received in fiduciary capacity. CIC ML Sharma rejected this contention based on section 22 of rti act and also on the fact that parts of the legal opinion was already in public domain. CIC/SA/A/2015/000933,935,949,1023,1062,1064,1082,1083 Page 6
18. Delhi High Court on 30.11.2009 in Union of India Vs CIC & PD Khandelwal WPC NO.7304/2007 held that the information barred under Section 8(1) clause (e) can be disclosed if the competent authority comes to the conclusion that such disclosure is in the larger public interest. Para 19 of the judgment is: "19. The term competent authority is a term of art which has been coined and defined for the purposes of the RTI Act and therefore wherever the term appears, normally the definition clause i.e. Section 2(e) should be applied, unless the context requires a different interpretation. Under S 8(8)(e) of the RTI Act, the competent authority is entitled to examine the question whether in view of the larger public interest information protected under the Sub clause should be disclosed. The jurisdiction of PIO is restricted and confined to deciding the question whether information was made available to the public authority in fiduciary relationship. The competent authority can direct disclosure of information, if it comes to the conclusion that larger public interest warrants disclosure. The question whether the of the competent authority can be made subject matter of appeal before the First Appellate Authority or the CIC has been examined separately. A decision of the PIO on the question whether information was furnished/available to a public authority in fiduciary relationship or not, can be made subject matter of appeal before the Appellate Authorities including the CIC."
19. In the Superintendent vs The Registrar on 5 January, 2010 (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1288119/) by JUSTICE K.CHANDRU of Madras High Court in W.P.NO.20574 of 2009, it was observed that the information with public prosecutor can be had under RTI subject to Section 8(1)(e). The High Court said: A careful reading of Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act as well as the standards of professional conduct framed under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 will clearly show that it is not as if this information cannot be asked from the Government directly rather than asking a counsel to divulge the nature of the advice tendered by him. Though the office of the Public Prosecutor is a public authority, the Act only enjoins upon him to furnish such information, which are available with him to be furnished subject to Section 8(1)(e) of the Act.
20. In case of Ramachandran v Alagiriswami, AIR 1961 Mad 450 (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1300317/) the public character of the office of Government Pleader and public prosecutor was pointed out. ...A Government Pleader is more than an advocate for a litigant.....He holds a public office. ... the duties of the Government Pleader, Madras are duties of a public nature. Besides, as already explained the public are genuinely concerned with the manner in which Government CIC/SA/A/2015/000933,935,949,1023,1062,1064,1082,1083 Page 7 Pleader discharges his duties because, if he handles his cases badly, they have ultimately to foot the bill. ... I consider that the most useful test to be applied to determine the question is that laid down by Erle, J. in (1851) 17 QB 149. The three criteria are, source of the office, the tenure and the duties. I have applied that test and I am of opinion that the conclusion that the office is a public office is irresistible. Similarly, in Mukul Dalal v. Union of India (1988 SCC (3) 144), it was held that (SCC pp. 149 & 152, para 6 & 9) the office of the Public Prosecutor is a public one and the primacy given to the Public Prosecutor under the Scheme of the Code (CrPC) has a social purpose.
17. We are, therefore, unable to accept the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that the appointment of District Government Counsel by the State Government is only a professional engagement like that between a private client and his lawyer, or that it is purely contractual with no public element attaching to it, which may be terminated at any time at the sweet will of the government excluding judicial review. ...."
21. Ultimately in paragraph 24, the Madras High Court in Superintendent v Registrar case did not allow disclosure. Under Section 8(2), a public authority may allow access to information if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests, even in respect of exempted category under Section 8(1). In the present case, since there is a statutory bar against the counsel disclosing such information, which will result in civil consequences for the counsel, S 8(2) cannot be read in isolation so as to jettison the obligation on an Advocate from disclosing the information, which are privileged and barred by Statutes.
22. The Commission observes that section 22 of rti act which accorded overriding effect to RTI over all other statutes cannot be totally brushed aside, and it has to be read in addition to provisos in section 8 of rti act. The difference between an individual client and state consulting its legal council also need to be understood. The public character and public office of Government pleader, public prosecutor and standing council of the University is different from private character of an individual client locked up in legal conflict with another individual. The RTI Act is made to bring the practical regime of transparency and accountability. University is the public authority which cannot appoint its legal counsel or employees at its CIC/SA/A/2015/000933,935,949,1023,1062,1064,1082,1083 Page 8 sweet will, but it has to follow due process in transparent manner. If a citizen seeks to know that process, he/she has to be informed within the four corners of RTI Act, 2005.
23. Hence in this situation, not Section 126 or 129 of Evidence Act, but Sections 3,6, 8 and
22 of Right to Information Act need to be invoked. Section 3 gives right to information and Section 6 provides the mechanism. Section 8 is important in this case as it under 8(1)(e) prescribes a limitation that information received in fiduciary capacity cannot be given unless there is a larger public interest.
24. Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition (1999), edited by Mr. Bryan A. Garner gives the following meaning for the term: A relationship under which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on matters within the scope of the relationship. Fiduciary relationships such as trustee beneficiary, guardianward, agentprincipal and attorneyclient require the highest duty of care. Fiduciary relationship usually arise in one of four situations: (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act for or give advice on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is a relationship that has traditionally been recognised as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client or a stockbroker and a customer.
25. In Treesha case, the court referred to the Canadian Courts, who have developed the following tests for determining whether fiduciary relationship has been established, viz.
a) The fiduciary has the scope for the exercise of some discretion or power;
b) The fiduciary can unilaterally exercise that power or discretion so as to affect the beneficiary's legal or practical interests; and
c) The beneficiary is peculiarly vulnerable to or at the mercy of the fiduciary holding the discretion or power. Based on the legal principles arising from the above discussion, I am inclined to add one more to the same viz.
d) The fiduciary is obliged to protect the interests of the other party.
26. A Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi, in the decision of Secretary General Supreme Court of India V Subhash Chandra Agarwal, L.P.A. No. 501/2009, while dealing with the CIC/SA/A/2015/000933,935,949,1023,1062,1064,1082,1083 Page 9 question as to whether the Chief Justice of India holds information regarding the assets of judges of the Supreme Court in a fiduciary capacity, held: The CJI cannot be a fiduciary visavis judges of the Supreme Court. The judges of the Supreme Court hold independent office. And there is no hierarchy, in their judicial functions, which places them at a different plane than the CJI. The declarations are not furnished to the CJI in a private relationship or as a trust but in discharge of the constitutional obligation to maintain higher standards and probity of judicial life and are in the larger public interest. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the asset information shared with the CJI, by judges of the Supreme Court, are held by him in a capacity of fiduciary, which if directed to be revealed, would result in such breach of duty. (Paragraph 102) Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, in University of Calcutta V Pritam Rooj, AIR 2009 Calcutta 97, explained: "77. The plea of fiduciary relationship, advanced by the CBSE has not impressed us. Fiduciary relationship is not to be equated with privacy and confidentiality. It is one where a party stands in a relationship of trust to another party and is generally obliged to protect the interest of the other party. While entrusting the examiner with the work of assessment/evaluation of an answer script there is no agreement between the examiner and the public authority that the work performed by the examiner shall be kept close to the chest of the public authority and shall be immune from scrutiny/inspection by anyone. At least something in this respect has been placed (sic before) us. Since the RTI Act has been enacted to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and for containing corruption, even if there be such a clause in the agreement between the examiner and the public authority the same would be contrary to public (sic interest) and void. We have no hesitation to hold that even of there be any agreement between the public authority and the examiner that the assessment/ evaluation made by the latter would be withheld on the ground that it is confidential and an assurance is given in this respect, the same cannot be used as a shield to counter a request from an examinee to have access to his assessed/evaluated answer scripts and the RTI Act would obviously override such assurance. Having regard to our understanding of the meaning of the word `fiduciary', there is little scope to hold that the etchings/markings made on answer scripts by an examiner are held in trust by the public authority immune from disclosure under the RTI Act. We find no force in such contention which, accordingly, stands overruled."
27. In Treesa Irish vs Central Public Information (WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006(C), decided by Kerala High Court on 30 August, 2010, Justice S. Siri Jagan agreed with the above conclusion of Calcutta High Court about fiduciary relationship. Extending the same argument, it will be difficult to protect the communication between a Standing Counsel and University equating with that of a communication between ordinary accused and criminal lawyer, attributing fiduciary relationship. When both the Public authority and Standing Counsel of the University CIC/SA/A/2015/000933,935,949,1023,1062,1064,1082,1083 Page 10 is expected to protect the public spirit, accountability, fairness in procedure, how can they convert fiduciary relationship even if it exists, to convert the communication as secret or confidential? Are they really protecting the beneficial interests of the public authority? What harm will result if the legal opinion and information related to it is given, and if that information is used before any court of law? If the rejection of appellants wife is upheld by the court, the Universitys contention will prevail, otherwise, a wrong or illegality will be corrected. In both the ways there will be possibility of advancing the interest of justice. Public authority is expected to function like a trust for the beneficial interest of the society, from which the citizen or applicant or appellant emerged and seeking information.
28. Another major issue the University should realize is that, when it responds to information request, it was not giving evidence but sharing the information. The Courts of law are fully equipped with to deal with the question whether such information can be admitted as evidence or given due weight or not.
29. Section 2(f) of Right to information Act in its definition of information includes opinion also. Opinion includes opinion given by the advocate, standing counsel or public prosecutor or Government pleader or Advocate General etc. However it is subject to limitations prescribed under Section 8.
30. In the wake of above analysis, whether communication between client and lawyer should be considered as in fiduciary capacity? Does it mean information is privileged and hence protected? Whether meaning of privileged is secret and not to be shared with anybody? The law of evidence universally allowed a protection with an objective that in case an individual is involved in a litigation or prosecution, he should have enough space to discuss his problem and situation with his lawyer in confidence to protect his interests without fear of exposure. The law also allows a person to go to any extent to protect his self interest. Even if he confesses to his lawyer that he committed crime with which he was charged and being prosecuted, the CIC/SA/A/2015/000933,935,949,1023,1062,1064,1082,1083 Page 11 lawyer has duty not to disclose it. Because of this secrecy in the form of confidentiality arising out of communication in fiduciary capacity, he will have an advantage and other side will not gain any advantage. If the lawyer joins hand with the lawyer of opposite party and shares the information communicated to him by his client, his interests will certainly suffer. Such a revelation could be considered as professional misconduct, for which lawyer might have to face the disciplinary action from bar council.
31. If the client is an ordinary individual, asking under RTI, issue of this privilege does not arise as it will not apply to private individuals. If a client is a corporation its commercial interests can be protected under this privilege. When client is a state or states instrumentality such as a University in this case, which is run with tax payers money and fee of the people, should the same privilege extend to the Client University or state?
32. Now what is the situation under RTI? Section 8(1)(e) covers this aspect and says it cannot be given unless larger public interest demands.
33. In an adversarial litigation between two citizen those parties need to protect their personal interests against each other. In a democratic state, when a decision of the authority is challenged, the authority has to justify their decision to have been taken without any bias or irregularity or breach of law or any other provision of the eligibility criterion which is supposed to have taken in transparent manner. The nonselected candidate has a right to know why he was not selected. The adversarial litigation also demands complete exchange of information between the parties and the adjudicator, court of law or judge.
34. The lawyers opinion given to state or university is also called legal opinion. If it is a legal opinion, nothing stops from sharing it with the applicant, even if he is going to be an adversary in litigation. If the opinion given is against law and thus illegal, the citizen has right to know what is such an illegal opinion and he can also challenge it. The Standing counsel CIC/SA/A/2015/000933,935,949,1023,1062,1064,1082,1083 Page 12 has a duty to give opinion as per law, which is going to be the contention of the University in the court of law against any petitioner, even if the petitioner is appellant or his wife as in this case. If the council has opined that the University was not legally correct and says that the claim of petitioner was justifiable, the University cannot waste public money and time to fight such a case, until legal counsel has reviewed the opinion.
35. There is public interest that outweighs the protected interest in this case. Thus it passed the test prescribed under section 8(2) of RTI Act. The Commission considers that the public interest in disclosure of legal opinion is larger enough because the transparency in selection, legality of decision, and equality in considering eligibility criterion should form basis of opinion before litigation and contention or argument during litigation in open trial. Hence it has to be shared with the appellant, as the test laid down in proviso of larger public interest under Section 8(1)(e). Even if the appellant is going to be a prospective adversary in courts will not make any difference regarding the disclosability of the information. DECISION:
36. The Commission, having heard the submissions and perused the records, considers that as the appellant and his wife is having a right to seek legal remedy in a court of law, which is an issue of public interest. The opinion given by the standing counsel of University is the information held by the University and it has to be disclosed subject to Section 8. Under the proviso to Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(2) read with Section 22 of RTI Act, the competent authority should have considered existence of public interest in RTI request and given the information. As per the decisions referred above, it is the duty of the Information Commission examine the public interest in each case of second appeal. The Commission considered the CIC/SA/A/2015/000933,935,949,1023,1062,1064,1082,1083 Page 13 content of the RTI request and find a larger public interest in disclosing the information meeting the test under Section 8(1) and 8(2) as the advise was given by standing counsel, a public authority, and the advise was about the challenge to the process of selection and appointment of standing counsel and post for which appellants wife has contended. Commission direction as to different points of these 8 RTI applications: Information Sought Commission observation & directions
1. Copy of the relevant record of the EFL University, Hyderabad based on which Registrar, EFL University has, in the letter dated 13.10.2014 came to the conclusion, that the information from the department about the requirement is a condition precedent to issue the offer of appointment in the vacancy caused due to resignation of the incumbent within one year of his date of joining the post and copy of the relevant, rules and regulations. No information under Section 2(f).
2. His representation dated 11.12.2014 addressed to the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, MHRD Action taken on this representation shall be given to the appellant.
3. Copy of the relevant note file of the EFL University, wherein the ViceChancellor has approved the Counter affidavit filed by Professor P. Madhavan, the Registrar, the English and Foreign Language University before the Honble High Court in W.P No. 4856 of 2012 Ambiguous question. Note file regarding the counter affidavit is a information given under fiduciary capacity, hence cannot be given under Section 8(1)(e).
4. Sought for information regarding the letter of the Registrar, English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad dated 13.10.2014 wherein he informed the MHRD that the reserve panel was valid for one year Vague point. What is information about a letter? It is a mischievous question motivated by personal interest.
5. Whether there is any rule in the university statutes, ordinances rules & regulations prescribing procedure to fill the vacancy of a teaching post arising due to acceptance of resignation by the incumbent within a period of one year. No information under s. 2(f) and a hypothetical question in the form of seeking clarification. CPIO is not under any obligation to search and prepare a case for the wife of appellant.
6. Details of the procedure prescribed in the university statutes, ordinances rules & regulations to fill the vacancy of a teaching Post arising due to acceptance of the resignation etc. No information under 2(f) and a hypothetical question in the form of seeking clarification.
7. Rules and regulations in which failing which was mentioned. It is ambiguous Information is already in public domain. It is for the appellant to search and take it. It is not CIC/SA/A/2015/000933,935,949,1023,1062,1064,1082,1083 Page 14 information under 2(f).
8. Sought copy of note file of the EFL University wherein order issued by the VC appointing Sri M. Satyanarayan Goud as Standing Council of English & Foreign Languages University, copy of his appointment office order, month wise details of expenditure incurred by the EFL University towards professional fee paid to Sri M. S. Goud etc. Copy of the appointment order can be given. Rest of it personal information of M. S. Goud which appellant cannot seek, for his self centered purpose.
9. Copy of note file of the EFL University wherein order issued by the VC to obtain pointwise legal opinion from Sri M. Satyanarayan Goud, advocate, as standing Council of English & Foreign Languages University Its privileged communication between university and its legal counsel. Seeking pointwise information to counter his wifes petition. It is a self centered information request, to advance his wifes interest. There is no public interest it.
37. The University is under an obligation to disclose on his own entire information about the process of appointments as per the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 30th June 2015. The Commission, therefore, directs the Public Authority to intimate the basis of appointing a lawyer in RTI proceedings, along with expenditure involved and the basis on which letter dated 1310 2014 was sent to MHRD, along with the copy of opinion given by the standing counsel after severing exempted information from it, if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter. The above 8(eight) appeals are disposed of accordingly. (M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (U.C.Joshi) Deputy Secretary CIC/SA/A/2015/000933,935,949,1023,1062,1064,1082,1083 Page 15 Address of the parties :
1. The CPIO under RTI Act, Govt. of India English & Foreign Language University, Osmania University Campus, Tarnaka, Secunderabad500007
2. Shri Alok Srivastava 115, Prashasan Nagar, Road No.2, Jubilee Hills PO: Film Nagar Hyderabad500096 CIC/SA/A/2015/000933,935,949,1023,1062,1064,1082,1083 Page 16