The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the certificate of Mr. Vijay Grover (appellant) for class 12 (Year-1981, Roll number-317204)
2. Provide the certificate of Mr. Vijay Grover(appellant) for class 10 (Year 1978, Roll number : 224833)
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the sought for information stating that there is a separate process to obtain duplicate documents.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that the CPIO had denied the desired information to him while stating that the information is incomprehensible and had suggested to seek the information by way of a separate procedure wherein the prescribed fee is exorbitantly high, arbitrary and uncalled for. He relied on a decision passed by the Commission in File No. CIC/SA/A/2016/001451 passed in the matter of Subhash Chandra Tyagi v. CBSE and submitted that Section 22 of the RTI Act should be applied in the present case which overrides the entire process of obtaining duplicate copy of a certificate.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his earlier reply dated 15.03.2019.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of the both parties, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO and the FAA order, both are appropriate. The appellant in his appeal memo had clearly mentioned that he had sought duplicate certificates for 10 and 12 class. The Commission opines that seeking a duplicate certificate cannot be equated with seeking a photocopy of a certificate as it means creation of a new record which is not readily available with the public authority. It is only when any applicant submits an application form for supply of a duplicate certificate, the application is processed and the same is prepared under the prescribed guidelines and procedures which clearly means that a new record needs to be created. It is pertinent to mention here that under the RTI Act only such information can be supplied that is available and existing and is held by the Public Authority or is held under the control of the Public Authority. The appellant has been clearly informed that there is a separate procedure for obtaining duplicate copies ofdocuments and he was also advised to submit an application form alongwith the fees and other required documents as per the prevalent procedure and the relevant guidelines.
Also, the decision quoted by the appellant in File No. CIC/SA/A/2016/001451 passed in the matter of Subhash Chandra Tyagi v. CBSE is not applicable to this case as in that case the issue was regarding the charges which were to be paid for getting the photocopies of the certificate and in the present case, the matter is regarding the issuance of duplicate certificates. Both the issues are entirely different and it is also brought to the notice of the appellant that Section 22 of the RTI Act is applicable only in such cases where there is any inconsistency between the RTI Act and any other enactment in question, which is not the case in the present RTI application. For better clarity of the matter, it is pertinent to quote verbatim the observations given by the Commission in the above referred case. The relevant para is extracted below:
“It is apparent from facts on record and submissions that Mr. Kamal Tyagi was enrolled as private candidate. It is notable that under the byelaws of CBSE, a private candidate means a person who is not a Regular Candidate but, is allowed to undertake and/or appear in the All India/Delhi Senior School Certificate Examination or All India/Delhi Secondary School Examination of the Board. Thus the allegation of appellant that the candidate Mr. Kamal Tyagi was not attending classes loses ground. However, as complainant is also expressing doubts about genuineness of certificates and marks of Kamal Tyagi, in that case, the CBSE has to consider this as a complaint, verify the genuineness of the records and report the result to the appellant. This was not done. During the second appeal, the CPIO Mr. PP Verma has made entirely new arguments that the information sought was personal/third party information, there was no consent available and hence could not be given. This is in contradiction to the stand taken by the earlier CPIO, who offered the information, but wanted an exorbitant cost of Rs. 250/per page. It is absolutely illegal on the part of CPIO to charge Rs. 250/per page. The Public authority/CBSE has to comply with RTI Act and RTI Rules, under which charges for copying should not exceed Rs. 2/per page. The rules of CBSE which enabled them to collect Rs. 250/per page cannot be implemented, when an applicant approaches under RTI Act. Section 22 of RTI Act specifically overrides every other rule or law, which is contradictory to RTI Act.”
DECISION
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the order of the FAA and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.