Praveen Kumar v. Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08/09/2020

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.10.2019 seeking the following information;

Having not received any response from the Respondents, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.11.2019.

The Respondent no. 1 furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 25.06.2020 stating as follows:-

2

In regard to his first appeal, FAA's order dated 09.06.2020 directed the Respondent no. 1 as follows:-

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video-conference.

Respondent no. 1: Rajendra Aggrawal, Principal, Garg Degree College, Haridwar present through video-conference.

Respondent no. 2: Sanjay Kumar Chamoli, Assistant Registrar (Aff.) & CPIO present through video-conference.

The Appellant stated that he is aggrieved by the fact that no material information has been provided to him till date.

The Respondent no. 2 submitted that since Garg Degree College was the actual custodian of information sought, therefore the instant RTI Application has been transferred to the Respondent no. 1 under Section 6(3) of RTI Act. The Respondent no. 1 submitted that Garg Degree College being a private self- financing college , therefore, does not come under the ambit of Section 2(h) of RTI Act.

Decision:

3

The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record as well as the proceedings during the hearing observes that the transfer of the RTI Application by HNBGU to Garg Degree College, Haridwar and in addition to it the direction issued by the FAA to the CPIO, Dhanuari College, Haridwar to provide information without ascertaining the status of the said College vis-à-vis Section 2(h) of the RTI Act was not appropriate.

Yet, in the instant case, the status of the averred college being a public authority or not under the RTI Act is not the moot question for determination as the RTI Application was filed with a public authority. Here, it is relevant to bring out the provisions of Section 2(j) and 2(f) of the RTI Act which clearly stipulates that:

Section 2(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 the right to—..........."

Section 2(f)- "...."information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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..."

Upon a conjoint reading of the two Sections, it becomes essentially clear that the RTI Application of the Appellant has to be construed in the spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Act. It is emphasized therefore that the Appellant has sought for the information from a public authority and not from the averred college; therefore the transfer of the RTI Application to the College was not warranted.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission is also baffled with the fact that no reply was provided to the Appellant by the then CPIO, HNBGU as also by the present CPIO,HNBGU, Pauri Garhwal in response to the instant RTI Application and also no substantial explanation for such delay was tendered by the Respondent no. 2 during the hearing shows the disdainful conduct of HNBGU office in dealing with the RTI matters which is nothing but a way of causing unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information and also in violation of provision of RTI Act.

4

Therefore, the then CPIO through the present CPIO, HNBGU- Pauri Garhwal is directed to send his written explanations to explain as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act for prima-facie failing to reply to the instant RTI application. The written explanation of the then CPIO, HNBGU should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Present CPIO should ensure service of this order on the then CPIO at his current address for due compliance of aforesaid direction.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission further notes from close scrutiny of the contents of RTI Application that the queries raised by the Appellant at

points no. 2 - 6 do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as he has sought clarification/inferences from the CPIO based on speculative queries. Nonetheless, a factual clarification to this effect has been provided by the CPIO which is in spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.

Now, considering the prayer of the Appellant, the limited scope of relief lies partially at point no. 1 of RTI Application for which the CPIO, HNBGU is directed to adequately liaise with the concerned college for accessing the available information and intimate the total number of working staff of said college as sought forand provide the same to the Appellant without divulging the personal details of staffs which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The said information shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Saroj Punhani (सरोजपनुहािनुुु )

Information Commissioner (सचूनाआय ुू ुू ुू ु )

5

Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph)

Dy. Registrar

011-26179548/ ca.joseph@nic.in सी. ए. जोसफे, उप-पंजीयक दनांक /

6