Rakesh Kumar v. Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.09.2019 seeking the information regarding Dhanauri College, Haridwar, including inter alia as follows- On 21.09.2019, the ACPIO, HNBGU transferred the RTI Application to the CPIO/Principal, Dhanauri College, Haridwar under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act under due intimation to the Appellant.

The CPIO/Principal, Dhanauri College vide letter no. D.C.D./RTI/ /2012-20/ dated - 10-2019 replied to the CPIO, HNBGU with a copy marked to the Appellant as under -

2

Having not received any material response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2019. FAA's order dated 09.12.2019 directed the CPIO/Principal, Dhanauri College, Dhanauri, Haridwar to provide the information to the Appellant within 15 days.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAA's order, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non- receipt of desired information from the CPIO till date.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present. (The contact number of the Appellant not available on the record).

Respondent: Represented by H. M. Azad, Deputy Registrar & Nodal Officer (RTI Cell) along with Dr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Principal Dhanauri PG College, Haridwar present through audio-conference.

The Commission at the outset remarked that no contact number has been provided by the Appellant in his Second Appeal as also in the RTI Application. It was further remarked by the Commission that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal was non- receipt of desired information from the CPIO till date.

The Rep. of CPIO submitted that since the subject matter of information sought pertained to Dhanauri College, Haridwar, therefore the RTI Application was forwarded to the said college under Section 5(4) of RTI Act. Dr. Arvind Srivastava, Principal, Dhanauri College pleaded that the said college is a private self-financing college and thus, does not come under the ambit of Section 2(h) of RTI Act.

Decision:

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 the Dhanauri College, Haridwarmindlessly and in addition to it the

3

direction issued by the FAA to the Principal, 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.

In fact, 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 in response to instant RTI Application and also no substantial explanation for such delay was tendered by the Rep. of CPIO 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. Therefore, the then CPIO (designated at the time of receipt of instant RTI Application) as well as the present CPIO, HNBGU is directed to send their written

4

explanations to explain as to why show cause proceedings should not be initiated against them for imposing penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act for prima-facie failing to reply to the instant RTI application. The written explanation of both the deemed CPIOs 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.

Now, considering the prayer of the Appellant, the CPIO, HNBGU is directed to adequately liaise with the concerned college for accessing the available information as sought for in the RTI Application and provide a point wise reply along with readily available information on points 1 to 6 of RTI Application without divulging the personal details of faculty members, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The said reply & 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. It is also pertinent to note that the information sought for at point no. 7 of RTI Application regarding the salary related details of faculty members pertains to personal information of third parties which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The said observation is in line with a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010

wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner &Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India &Anr., (2013) 14 SCC

794. In view of this, no relief can be granted on this point.

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