1. The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points on whether the students were allowed to do their internship in Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital, Rourkela; whether the students were allowed to do internship in any other medical college or hospital recognized by MCI; whether any instructions could be issued by the MCI to the College authorities and other issues related thereto.
2. Dissatisfied due to the non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
Hearing:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
3. The following were present:
Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Shikhar Ranjan, Law Officer and Ms. Akansha Srivastava, Legal Assistant;
4. The Complainant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Parshuram Barik, Network Engineer NIC studio at Keonjhar confirmed the absence of the Complainant. The Respondent informed the Commission that after compiling information from the different divisions, a consolidated reply was sent to the Complainant on 08.12.2017 giving point-wise details. Furthermore, it was clarified that the MBBS degree in the said college had since been recognized w.e.f 31.05.2018
5. The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.”
6. Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
“(j) right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ……..”
7. In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35….. “It is also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in Section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.”
8. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah v. Administrative Officer. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. “….Under the RTI Act “information” is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.”
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed.”
7. “….the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the “public authority” under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him.”
9. The Complainant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION
10. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The Commission however 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.
11. The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
Comments