O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "यह िक B.S.M Law College ड़की मे िविध संकाय के कुल छा व छा ाओ ं िक संा िकतनी है स ंिधत दावेज िक मािणत ितिलपी ।
(ii) उ" कॉलेज मे सभी अ&ापको िक संा व यो(ता व वेतन स ंिधत दावेज की मािणत ितिलपी ।
Page 1 of 6
1 / 7
1
(iii) उ" कॉलेज का पूण* +ाफ िक जानकारी, जो िक िव.ालय संचालन हेतु अिनवाय* है संबंिधत दावेज मािणत ितिलिप ।
(iv) यह िक उ" सं1ान मे LLB को िविभ2 सेमे+र िक फीस के िववरण स ंधी दावेज तथा िव4िवधालय फीस व ै56कल फीस उसी म7 स8िलत है या नही ंस 9ी :ेक दावेज की ितिलिपयाँ I
(v) यिद B.S.H. Law College को सरकार <ारा छा वृि> हेतु अनुदान ा? होता है तो संबंिधत दावेज िक ित ।"
2. The Nodal CPIO vide letter dated 04.05.2023 forwarded the request to the CPIO, Affiliation Section of the University as well as to the Principal, B.S.M. College, Roorkee, Haridwar under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act.
3. Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of any further reply or information, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.06.2023. The FAA vide order dated 15.09.2023 stated that:
"प ावली के अवलोकन से @A है िक लोक सूचना अिधकारी/सहायक कुलसिचव माBता अनुभाग, <ारा िनधा*Dरत समयाविध के अEग*त सूचनाओ ंका ेषण िकया गया है जबिक लोक सूचना
अिधकारी / ाचाय* बी०एस०एम० कॉलेज डकी, हDर<ार ने सूचनाओ ंका ेषण नही ंिकया है, जो की सूचना अिधकार अिधिनयम-2005 का घोर उKंघन है। अतः अनुरोधकता* को वांिछत सूचनाय7 अपीलीय आदेश ा5? के दो स?ाह के अEग*त िनशुO ेिषत की जाय।"
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 14.12.2023.
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Arvind Kumar, Assistant Registrar & CPIO, HNBGU along with Shahzad Alam, Lecturer, BSM Law College attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The CPIO, HNBGU submitted that the available information was provided to the Appellant on point no.1 of the RTI Application vide their letter dated 08.06.2023 and for Page 2 of 6
2 / 7
2
the remaining points, the RTI Application was transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the concerned college.
7. The Representative of the BSM Law college submitted that their college does not fall under the purview of the RTI Act and as such when the Appellant was tried to be contacted it was found that no such person was present in the given address.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the Nodal Officer/CPIO has erred in forwarding the RTI Application under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act to a private body i.e. the BSM Law College when the Respondent was supposed to either provide the information as available in their record or was required to access the same under any law applicable for the time being in force from the private body as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. This renders the reply of 04.05.2023 to the extent of forwarding the RTI Application to the averred private college endorsed to the Appellant by the Nodal CPIO as null and void. It is baffling to note that further to the forward note, the Nodal Officer/CPIO has also asked the private body to transfer the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act if the information sought for is not available with the institute, which is akin to adding insult to injury to the Appellant's right to information. On similar lines, the CPIO, Affiliation Section has also erred in transferring the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the private college vide their reply dated 08.06.2023. Both Section 5(4) and 6(3) of the RTI Act are applicable to the public authorities strictly and not to private bodies and the Respondent ought to steer clear of having their own interpretation of the RTI Act provisions to avoid causing absolute confusion and inconvenience to the RTI Applicants.
9. Moreover, the FAA has issued directions to the Principal of the averred institute by arbitrarily deeming him to be the CPIO in the matter. The FAA had no jurisdiction to deem the Principal of the private body as a CPIO under the RTI Act and mislead the Appellant by issuing such farce directions. At best, the FAA ought to have corresponded with the institute under any of the applicable administrative regulations of the University in terms of the regulatory power exercised over the averred private body. As it follows, the FAA's order is also rendered as null and void.
Page 3 of 6
3 / 7
3
10. Now, taking into account the gross violations of the RTI Act caused by the Nodal Officer/CPIO & the FAA in the matter, the Commission directs the Nodal Officer/CPIO as well as the CPIO, Affiliation Section to send their respective written submissions to show cause as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for the misleading action taken on the instant RTI Application vide their letter(s) dated 04.05.2023 & 08.06.2023, thereby causing deemed refusal to provide the information to the Appellant within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act as prescribed in Section 7(1). The said written submissions of the Nodal Officer/CPIO as well as CPIO, Affiliation Section shall reach the Commission within 15 days of the receipt of this order.
Similarly, the FAA shall send a proper written explanation to the Commission to state as to why the FAA should not be treated as the deemed CPIO in the matter for the purpose of imposition of penalty in having failed to act as per the mandate of the RTI Act to ensure proper action by the CPIO(s) of the University on the instant RTI Application. In other words, the FAA ought to explain the rationale behind deeming the Principal of a private body as a CPIO instead of directing the CPIO of the University to dispose of the RTI Application as mandated under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. The said written submissions of the FAA shall reach the Commission within 15 days of receipt of this order.
Arvind Kumar, Nodal Officer & CPIO, HNBGU shall ensure service of this order to the concerned CPIO, Affiliation Section and to the concerned FAA.
Any failure on the part of the Nodal Officer/CPIO; CPIO, Affiliation Section and the FAA to comply with the above directions may entail imposition of ex-parte penalty and initiation of disciplinary action under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act.
11. As regards points 2,3,4,5 of the RTI Application which were erroneously transferred to the averred college, the CPIO, Affiliation Section shall now provide a revised reply incorporating the available information which is under their control or which can be accessed from the averred institute under any law for the time being in force as per Page 4 of 6
4 / 7
4
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act which stipulates- 'information means…… information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;..". It is emphasized that the CPIO ought to access/collect information from the institute and provide it directly to the Appellant and under no circumstance will the RTI Application be transferred by the Respondent under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to private bodies. The CPIO shall categorically state against the relevant point if no information is available or if such information is not accessible from the averred institute. The said revised reply of the CPIO incorporating the available or accessed information, if any, subject to the exemptions of Section 8 of the RTI Act, shall be provided to the Appellant, free of cost within 15 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
12. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/- (Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंंंदं ी राम लंंगंं म)
Information Commissioner (सूूूचू ना आयुुुु
)
दनांक/Date: 25.09.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 5 of 6
5 / 7
5
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, CPIO, RTI Cell,
Administrative Building, Srinagar, Distt-Garhwal, Uttarakhand-246174
2. The FAA Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Administrative Building,
Srinagar, Distt-Garhwal,
Uttarakhand-246174
3. Principal B.S.M. College, Railway Road, Roorkee, Distt- Haridwar, Uttarakhand-247667
4. Sakib Ali Page 6 of 6
6 / 7
6
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 71 / 17
7