- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dr. Vimla Mishra Com... v. Central Public Infor...
Summary of Commission Opinion — Vanaja N. Sarna, Information Commissioner
Factual and Procedural Background
The opinion concerns 17 RTI complaints filed by a complainant seeking information regarding recognition granted for the B.Ed. course to various colleges/universities. The complaints sought a set of documents and details (listed below) in relation to each of the 17 institutions. The 17 matters are recorded under file numbers 661023, 661024, 661028, 661030, 661032, 661035, 661039, 661042, 661045, 661047, 661048, 661051, 661052, 661053, 661054, 661055 and 661057.
The 17 institutions named in the opinion are (as listed in the opinion):
- Vaishno Devi Prashikshan Mahavidyalaya, Pratapgarh, U.P. (661023)
- Yamuna Singh Shikshan Prasikshan Sansthan, Pratapgarh, U.P. (661024)
- Virendra Nath Shukla Institute of Education and Technology, Pratapgarh, U.P. (661028)
- Vidyawati Devi Mahavidyalaya, Katra Dayaram, Mau Iama, Prayagraj, UP (661030)
- Urmila Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Jhunsi, Prayagraj, U.P. (661032)
- Mahavir Kailash Mahavidyalaya, Manda, Prayagraj, U.P. (661035)
- Mahaveer College of Higher Education, Sarai Inayat, Prayagraj, U.P. (661039)
- Maharana Pratap Mahavidyalaya, Karchalpur, Fatehpur, U.P. (661042)
- Maa Sharda Mahavidyalaya, Bindki, Fatehpur, UP (661045)
- Late Jagannath Patel Mewalal Patel Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Ladigavan, Fatehpur, UP (661047)
- Late Ram Prasad Yadav Degree College, Sidhion, Fatehpur, UP (661048)
- Lala Laxmi Narayan Degree College, Sirsa, Prayagraj, U.P. (661051)
- Sukhdev Singh Mahavidyalaya, Kaserua Kala Sahson, Prayagraj, U.P. (661052)
- Shri Suresh Chandra Education Institute, Bhiti Handia, Prayagraj, U.P. (661053)
- Chaviraji Urmila Devi Shishan Sansthan Sangipur, Pratapgarh (661054)
- Late Kripa Shankar Mahavidyalya, Nahwai, Prayagraj, U.P. (661055)
- T.N. Singh Educational College, Salaiya, Meja, Prayagraj, U.P. (661057)
The specific items of information sought in each RTI included: (1) list of inspection committee members and their details at time of grant of recognition; (2) certified copies of documents submitted by the institutions about physical/human resources and building drawings/maps; (3) certified copies of images and videos captured during inspections; (4) details of staff appointed since recognition and permitted intake of students; (5) copies of annual audit reports/balance sheets; and (6) whether a university may organize B.Ed. course with fewer teachers or with vacant Principal/HOD posts.
Procedurally, the complainant alleged non-receipt or unsatisfactory responses. The CPIO and First Appellate Authority (FAA) initially did not provide replies. The FAA subsequently directed the PIO (NRC) to provide the information. Replies were eventually recorded as having been sent on various dates (ranging between 01.07.2020 and 20.08.2020) but the Commission noted incomplete enclosures and an approximate eight-month delay in response.
Key hearing date listed: 28/08/2020 (Date of Hearing and Decision).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the delay by the CPIO in providing point-wise replies to the 17 RTI applications (filed in November 2019) constitutes a violation of the RTI Act warranting action under Section 20(1) and (2).
- Whether the complaints should be admitted under Section 18 of the RTI Act (i.e., relief for obtaining information) given the circumstances and the relief sought by the complainant.
- Whether personal/third-party information and the names/designations of inspection committee members are disclosable under the RTI Act as claimed by the CPIO.
- Whether non-compliance with the FAA's order and delayed compliance justify imposition of penalty or other disciplinary action.
Arguments of the Parties
Complainant's Arguments
- The complainant asserted that the recent replies received were not satisfactory in all cases.
- The complainant contended there were significant irregularities in the NCTE inspection process and that disclosure of the requested information was necessary to ensure transparency.
Respondent's (CPIO / NRC / NCTE) Arguments
- The CPIO (Naveen/Navin Malik/Mallik — spelling varies in the opinion) stated that information related to third parties and personal information of colleges cannot be disclosed, and therefore he could not provide such information.
- The PIO explained operational and procedural delays: the online RTI applications were registered on 07.11.2019; the PIO alleged non-receipt of information from the NRC section causing delay; the FAA directed provision of information via Order F. NCTED/A/2019/60703 RTI/88206 dated 30.01.2020; responses were uploaded later (with a covering letter and enclosures allegedly sent on 20.08.2020).
- At hearing the CPIO explained being newly appointed PIO with “technical operational ignorance,” heavy workload (regulatory responsibilities across around 10 states), difficulty in retrieving physical files stored in the basement (~25,000 files), COVID-19 related restrictions and working-from-home arrangements, and the need to seek third-party consent for disclosure contributed to the delay.
- The CPIO submitted that where information was denied, specific exemption clauses were invoked and that best efforts were made to supply information; he volunteered to provide documents that applicants specify after reviewing the replies.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Commission reviewed the record and made the following analytical observations based exclusively on the material before it:
- The Commission noted that the PIO produced dates on which replies were given across the 17 cases (various dates between 01.07.2020 and 20.08.2020) but that the covering letter and enclosures allegedly sent on 20.08.2020 were not on the Commission's record.
- The PIO failed to provide a cogent explanation for the approximately eight-month delay from the filing of RTI applications in November 2019 to the replies given in mid-2020. The Commission stated that even if information was not disclosable, providing no reply to RTI applications was not acceptable under the RTI Act.
- Because the CPIO admitted that information was denied in some cases, the PIO was given a last opportunity to enclose copies of replies and, where applicable, provide suitable explanations for denial under the RTI Act before the next hearing.
- The Commission required the CPIO to appear via audio conferencing on 28.08.2020 to show cause why the complaints should not be admitted under Section 18 and why action under Section 20(1) and (2) should not be initiated. The PIO was directed to submit supporting documents to the Commission at least two days prior to the hearing and to ensure other responsible persons are present if appropriate.
- On review after hearing, the Commission found that the CPIO had enclosed the replies in respect of all 17 cases and, where information was denied, specific exemption clauses had been cited. The Commission considered the pandemic a legitimate impediment but observed there was no cogent explanation for delay between November 2019 and March 2020.
- The Commission noted procedural irregularity on the part of the complainant for prematurely filing complaint cases without awaiting disposal of first appeals within 45 days of filing the first appeal.
- Ultimately, the Commission concluded that the replies were provided point-wise and included specific denial clauses where applicable, and that the complainant had not identified the specific points for which she remained dissatisfied across the 17 RTI applications.
Holding and Implications
FINAL DISPOSITION: The complaints were disposed of by the Commission on 28.08.2020.
Direct holdings and concrete directions issued by the Commission (as recorded in the opinion):
- The Commission took serious note of the delayed replies and incomplete enclosures across all 17 cases and issued a strict warning to the CPIO for not replying within the statutory time frame.
- The CPIO (Shri Naveen Malik / Navin Mallik as referred in the opinion) was directed to appear before the bench via audio conferencing on 28.08.2020 to show cause why complaints should not be admitted under Section 18 and why action should not be initiated under Section 20(1) and (2). He was also directed to send copies of supporting documents to the Commission at least two days prior to the hearing.
- After hearing and review the Commission concluded that the replies were point-wise and that specific denial clauses had been provided where applicable; consequently, no further relief under Section 18 of the RTI Act was granted.
- The Commission accepted that the pandemic affected functioning but emphasised that there was no satisfactory explanation for the period from November 2019 to March 2020; despite this, the Commission did not impose penalty and instead issued a warning and disposed of the complaints.
- The opinion records that the complainant had not specified which points in the replies were unsatisfactory; accordingly, the Commission found no further action required in these cases.
Implication for the parties: The CPIO has been formally warned for delay and instructed to comply with procedural directions; the complainant's requests for further relief under Section 18 were not granted and the complaints have been closed. The opinion does not purport to set any new legal precedent; it treats the matters as complaints disposed of on the facts and procedural conduct recorded in the file.
Documentary and Hearing Record (as stated in the opinion)
- Date of Hearing and Decision: 28/08/2020 (both hearing and decision recorded for the same date).
- Respondent present over phone: Shri Navin Mallik, CPIO.
- The FAA order referenced: F. NCTED/A/2019/60703 RTI/88206 dated 30.01.2020.
- Reply/enclosure reference from NRC: F.No. 8 Aug 2020 NRC/NCTE/2020/Appeal Order/209031-33 dated 20.08.2020 (as stated in the record).
Note: This summary strictly reflects only the information contained in the provided opinion and does not add, infer, or interpret facts beyond that text.
Vanaja N. Sarna, IC
Information Sought:
1. In all the 17 complaints, the complainant has sought the following information in respect of the recognition given for B.Ed. Course to various universities/colleges (mentioned in the table below):
File No. Name of the College/University 661023 Vaishno Devi Prashikshan Mahavidyalaya, Pratapgarh, U.P. 661024 Yamuna Singh Shikshan Prasikshan Sansthan, Pratapgarh, U.P. 661028 Virendra Nath Shukla Institute of Education and Technology, Pratapgarh, U.P. 661030 Vidyawati Devi Mahavidyalaya, Katra Dayaram, Mau Iama, Prayagraj, UP 661032 Urmila Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Jhunsi, Prayagraj, U.P. 661035 Mahavir Kailash Mahavidyalaya, Manda, Prayagraj, U.P. 661039 Mahaveer College of Higher Education, Sarai Inayat, Prayagraj, U.P. 661042 Maharana Pratap Mahavidyalaya, Karchalpur, Fatehpur, U.P. 661045 Maa Sharda Mahavidyalaya, Bindki, Fatehpur, UP 661047 Late Jagannath Patel Mewalal Patel Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Ladigavan, Fatehpur, UP 661048 Late Ram Prasad Yadav DegreeCollege, Sidhion, Fatehpur, UP 661051 Lala Laxmi Narayan Degree College, Sirsa, Prayagraj, U.P. 661052 Sukhdev Singh Mahavidyalaya, Kaserua Kala Sahson, Prayagraj, U.P. 661053 Shri Suresh Chandra Education Institute, Bhiti Handia, Prayagraj, U.P. 661054 Chaviraji Urmila Devi Shishan Sansthan Sangipur. Pratapgarh, 661055 Late Kripa Shankar Mahavidyalya, Nahwai, Prayagraj, U.P. 661057 T.N. Singh Educational College, Salaiya, Meja, Prayagraj, U.P.
1. List containing names, designation, place of posting of the members of committee, which carried out the physical inspection of the university/college at the time of grant of recognition.
2. Certified copy of the documents submitted by the university/college pertaining to physical resources/human resources, for getting recognition. Also provide the copy of drawing/map of the building submitted by each university/college.
3. Certified copy of the images and videos captured by the members of inspection committee at the time of inspection of each university/college.
4. Details of the staff (Principal, Head of the Department, Teachers etc.) appointed in each university/college since grant of recognition. Also provide the details regarding the number of students permitted to get admission in each university/college.
5. Copy of the audit report/balance sheet submitted by each college/university, every year.
6. Whether a university is allowed to organize the B.Ed. course with less number of teachers as required as per the rules and also with vacant post of Principal and Head of the Department.
Grounds for filing Complaints
2. Both the CPIO and FAA have not provided any reply.
Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:
3. The complainant submitted that recent replies given were received but the same were not satisfactory in all the cases.
4. The CPIO submitted that the information sought were related to third parties and hence he could not provide the same. On a query by the Commission as to why a timely reply was not provided either disclosing the information or denying the same, he stated that the NCTE is having Affliation and Regulatory functions and the personal information of the colleges cannot be given. He also submitted that name and designation of the members of the Committee cannot be given.
5. The complainant contended that there are huge irregularities in the inspection process carried out by NCTE and hence the information sought should be disclosed to ensure transparency.
6. The PIO Shri Naveen Malik submitted that the online RTI application dated 06.11.2019 was registered in their office on 07.11.2019. Due to non receipt of information from PIO NRC, NCTE, the appellant made first appeal online bearing registration no. NCTED/A/2019/60703 dated 19.12.2019. The FAA, NCTE vide order no. F. NCTED/A/2019/60703 RTI/88206 dated 30.01.2020 directed the PIO NRC to provide information to the appellant. After receipt of relevant information from the concerned section of NRC, the appellant has been provided the desired information vide NRC's letter no. F.No. 8 Aug 2020 NRC/NCTE/2020/Appeal Order/209031-33 dated 20.08.2020.
7. He further summed up stating that no other information is available.
Observations:
8. Based on a perusal of record it was noted that the PIO vide written submissions dated 20.08.2020 submitted that in case nos. 661023, 661024 and 661030 a reply was given on 01.07.2020, in case no 661028, 661032 and 661055 a reply was given on 11.08.2020, in case no 661039 a reply was given on 15.07.2020, in case no. 661042 a reply was given on 21.07.2020, in case no. 661045 and 661047 a reply was given on 08.07.2020, in case no. 661048, 661051, 661052, 661053, 661035 and 661054 a reply was given on 20.08.2020, in case no. 661057 a reply was given on 03.07.2020. However, the documents sent on 20.08.2020 and the covering letter is not available on record.
9. It is relevant to mention here that the PIO failed to provide any cogent explanation for delaying the reply by approx 8 months. Moreover, if it is presumed also that information sought was not disclosable, providing no reply to the RTI applications is not acceptable as per the RTI Act. The Commission is not going into the merits of the replies at this juncture as the enclosures are not available with the Commission.
10. The complainant is not satisfied and the CPIO admitted that the information was denied, therefore a last opportunity is being given to the PIO to enclose the copies of the replies given in each case. Moreover, in case of denial of information a suitable explanation as per the RTI Act should be submitted before the next date of hearing.
DECISION
11. In view of the above observations, the Commission took serious note of the delayed reply in all the 17 cases by the CPIO and the incomplete enclosures being given. The PIO is accordingly given a last opportunity to explain why proper point-wise replies were not given in all the above cases on time. Also, he should explain the denial (if any) in a point-wise manner. The CPIO Shri Naveen Malik's conduct in not providing replies to the RTI applications, and not complying with the FAA's order in time amounts to gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. In view of this, the Commissiondirects Shri Naveen Malik to appear before the bench via audio conferencing on 28.08.2020 at 11.00 am to show cause as to why these complaints should not be admitted u/s 18 of the RTI Act and action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. He is also directed to send a copy of all supporting documents which he chooses to rely upon during the hearing. The said documents be sent to the Commission atleast two days prior to the hearing via linkpaper. If any other persons are responsible for the said omission, the PIO shall serve a copy of this order on such persons to direct their presence before the bench as well.
12. The cases are adjourned accordingly.
Date of Hearing: 28/08/2020
Date of Decision: 28/08/2020
13. The following were present:
Respondent: Shri Navin Mallik, CPIO, present over phone
Submission made by Respondent during the hearing:
14. The CPIO submitted that though the 17 RTI applications registered on MIS RTI portal on 06.11.2019 but due to technical operational ignorance it could not be attended, being newly appointed PIO in NRC. Secondly being overloaded with other regulatory assignments of around 10 states constraints of time was another factor for delay. Thirdly, collection and compilation of information from the section also takes time because regulatory files are usually kept in store separately in the basement. (Approximately 25000 files are in NRC). He further submitted that COVID-19 and its precautionary measures for attending physical files also consumed a few months and during the said period subordinates were usually working from home and avoiding attending files and other documents physically.
15. Since these RTI applications also require to be dealt with under disclosure sections hence it took some time in seeking consent for which letters were issued for third party information. In such circumstances best efforts were made to supply information to the applicants and replies were uploaded in CIC link. He assured the Commission that he shall take up RTI matters on priority and will not allow any factor/circumstance to repeat the same in future.
Observation:
16. Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO had enclosed the replies provided in respect of all the 17 cases and wherever the information sought was denied it was claimed under specific exemption clauses. The Commission is of the opinion that as the complainant had requested for information as well as penalty in his complaint, the relief for information cannot be given u/s 18 of the RTI Act.
17. As far as imposition of penalty is concerned, the Commission accepts that the prevailing pandemic scenario was undoubtedly an impediment in the smooth functioning of each and every public authority office and especially where the records are not available in digitised form. However, the Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that the RTI applications were filed in the month of November 2019 and there is no cogent explanation for the delay from November 2019 to March 2020. The complainant also had prematurely filed these complaint cases without waiting for disposal of first appeals within 45 days from the filing of the first appeal.
DECISION
18. In view of the above observations, the CPIO is issued a strict warning for not replying within time. As far as the replies are concerned the same were provided point-wise and specific denial clauses were also mentioned. The CPIO however during the hearing volunteered to provide documents whichever is possible if the applicant specifies her requirement in each case after going through the replies. Therefore, the Commission is of the view that the replies provided were point-wise and any further relief cannot be given u/s 18 of the Act. Moreover, the applicant has not specified the points for which she is not satisfied in respect of her 17 RTI applications and hence, there is no further action required in these cases.
19. The complaints are disposed of accordingly.
Alert