Sarthak Kumar v. Central Public Information Officer, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University .

The appellant has sought the details (name, post, address, educational qualification and photos) of the teachers appointed at S.P. Memorial B.Ed. College, Srinagar (Bhaktiyana) Garhwal from the year 2009-10 to 2017-18.

Grounds for Second Appeal

The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The CPIO submitted that the RTI application was received in the RTI Cell on 05.09.2017 and the same was forwarded on the same date to the Principal, S.P. Memorial B.Ed. College, Srinagar (Bhaktiyana) Garhwal u/s 5(4) for providing information. He further submitted that the first appeal was received on 16.10.2017 and notice for first appeal hearing dated 22.03.2018 was sent on 14.03.2018. He also read the FAA's order over the VC facility in which directions were given to the Principal, S.P. Memorial B.Ed. College for providing information within 7 days.

On a query by the Commission, the CPIO submitted that S.P. Memorial B.Ed. College is a private university.

The appellant submitted that information should have been provided as the college was given affiliation by the University.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the sought for information is related to personal information of the third parties. Hence, stands exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the named college was a private college and thus not a public authority and therefore not covered by the RTI Act. The CPIO should have accordingly provided an appropriate reply on time stating that the said college is a private college and not covered u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act. This would avoid giving wrong information to the appellant. Further, no records are available with the University which can help in providing the desired information.

DECISION

The Commission observes that the CPIO has misguided the appellant by forwarding the RTI application to the private college. Moreover, the FAA also has overlooked the fact that the said college is not a public authority. The Commission issues a warning to the CPIO to remain careful in future and ensure that proper replies are given as per the provisions of the Act. No relief can be granted, as the sought for information also stands exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.