Date of Hearing : 27.09.2024
Date of Decision : 03.10.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.09.2023 PIO replied on : 18.10.2023 First Appeal filed on : 18.10.2023 First Appellate Order on : 08.11.2023 2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 11.11.2023
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.09.2023 seeking information on following points regarding the North Bengal Medical College:-
1. "Please provide all the letters/documents/notices/emails that were sent to the concerned college till date.
2. Please provide all the replies that NMC received from the concerned college authority till date.
3. What actions upto now NMC has taken against the concerned college for not giving any reply to NMC letters?
4. Has NMC taken any action under section 7.5 of the Draft Regulations for the Prevention and Prohibition of Ragging in Medical Colleges/Institutions, 2021 in this matter?
5. Please mention the Regulation or Rule or instruction which restricted NMC to take any action against the concerned college, even after continuously not replying to NMC letters since 19.04.2023?
6. After sending how many letters, NMC may proceed with proper action against the medical college, in case they give no answers? Please also mention the Regulation or Rule or instruction regarding the same. Etc.."
The CPIO vide letter dated 18.10.2023 replied as under:-
"The matter related to Anti-Ragging has been forwarded to PGMEB Cell of NMC for processing."
1 / 4
1
Page 2 of 3
Dissatisfied with the incomplete inadequate response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.10.2023. The FAA vide order dated 08.11.2023 held as under:-
Point No. 1:-The requisite information has already been provided to the applicant. Point No. 2:-In this regard, Under Graduate Medical Education Board has received a mail dated 05.06.2023, a copy of the same is enclosed herewith for your ready reference.
Point No. 3 to 7:-The information sought in respect of point no. 4 to 7 is in form of queries, which do not form information within the provisions of RTI Act 2005. As per RTI Act, CPIO is required to provide information as available with him in the form of O.M., notifications, rules, regulations, orders, letters and circulars etc. Queries/clarifications or interpretation of information is outside the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information. For any grievance in the matter, you may write to concerned administrative ministry/department, which is a separate Public Authority. Point No. 8-9:- No such data is maintained in UGMEB
Point No. 10-11: The information sought in respect of point no. 10 & 11 is in form of queries, which do not form information within the provisions of RTI Act 2005. As per RTI Act, CPIO is required to provide information as available with him in the form of O.M., notifications, rules, regulations, orders, letters and circulars etc. Queries /clarifications or interpretation of information is outside the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information."
A reply dated 03/05.06.2023 from the Principal, North Bengal Medical College is found attached with the FAA's order addressed to the Director, UGMEB furnishing a point wise response to each query raised by the Appellant.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 20.09.2024 has been received from the Appellant stating his dissatisfaction with the information provided by the Respondent pointing out the inadequacies therein, including delay and incompleteness of information. Written submissions dated 20.09.2024 and 26.09.2024 has also been received from the PIO, UGMEB stating that reply had been sent on 08.11.2023 and adding that a Nodal Authority for examining Anti ragging cases has been formed under PGMEB, NMC. Hence, the complaint of the complainant had been forwarded to PGMEB and therefore applicant is requested to communicate with PGMEB, NMC for any action taken in the matter.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Present through video conference
Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar - CPIO/SO was present through video conference during hearing.
The Appellant contended during hearing that he was not satisfied with the reply sent by the Respondents while the Respondent from NMC stated that whatever information was available on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the RTI 2 / 4
2
Page 3 of 3
Act. The Respondent further stated that information related to queries raised by the Appellant can be answered by the PGMEB, NMC or the concerned State Medical Council and so the Appellant had been informed accordingly.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveals that the information available on record with the public authority in question and defined as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been duly provided to the Appellant. Considering the fact that the written submission filed by the Respondent is self explanatory as such, the Respondent is directed to send a copy of the written submissions dated 20.09.2024 and 26.09.2024, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week thereafter. Since the response sent by the PIO is appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, hence no intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त)
Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535
3 / 4
3
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 1 / 14 4
4