CIC: Information as defined u/s 2(f) has been duly provided and no further intervention is warranted - CIC took grave exception to the absence of PIO during hearing without intimating any reasons and a called for written explanation justifying the conduct
15 Sep, 2023Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
“1. List of candidates (names) who were interviewed for the post of Registrar IIITA (Advt No.-Advt. No. Estt./OpenRecruit/Reg.02/2021 dated 27 July 2021) on Nov 11, 2021.
2. Photocopies of response sheets of case study (given for solving) by all candidates for the post of Registrar before the interview.
3. Video Recording of the all the candidates Interview with the selection committee for the post of Registrar held on Nov. 11, 2021.
4. Photocopy of the recommendations of selection Committee for selection of Registrar IIIM.
5. Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Governors of IIIM in which the recommendations of the selection Committee (mentioned at 4 above for selection of registrar) were placed for consideration and approval.”
PIO furnished reply, vide email dated 02.03.2022, as under:
“The information for point Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are attached herewith.
The information for point No. 5 has not yet been received from the concerned department. We will provide the same once we receive it.”
Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 22.03.2022.
The FAA vide order dated 21.04.2022 held as under:
“The following Information is provided by the concerned department:
• The minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Governors at point no. 5, is in the nature of advice or opinion and therefore, protected under 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; “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; and (j) read with Section 3 of the RTI Act as in held by the CIC in the case of Gangaram v. University of Delhi.
• It is pertinent to note that the disclosure of such information could not only hamper the Selection Process and undermine the confidentiality of the exercise underway, apart from effecting the third party rights, as also held in the case of Central Information Public Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal by the Hon'ble Apex Court.”
PIO has furnished reply dated 17.07.2023 as under:
“This is in reference to the following —
(a) Your online RTI Request bearing Registration No. IITAD/R/W//22/00002 dated February 18, 2022.
(b) This office Reply to your RTI Request, cited at Para (a) above, through e-mail dated March 2, 2022.
(c) Your First Appeal bearing Registration No. IITAD/A/E/22/00001 dated March 22, 2022.
(d) This office Reply to your Appeal, cited at Para (c) above, dated April 21. 2022.
(e) Notice of Hearing for Appeal/Complaint from Central Information Commission, New Delhi bearing File No. CIC/IITAD/A/2022/633839 dated July 4, 2023 received in this office on July 10, 2023.
It is, hereby, intimated that the then Registrar (Acting) Prof. Vijayshri Tewari was requested to provide the information sought by you for Point No. 5 of your RTI Request cited in Para 1(a) above, but was not provided to the CPIO at that time.
However, we have requested the Present Registrar (Acting) Dr. Satish Kumar Singh to provide the same and has now been provided to the CPIO.
Please find enclosed the Minutes of the 20th Meeting of BoG, which is also available on the Institute Website now, Action Taken Report is not issued for this Agenda and the Appointment Letter is not issued to the recommended candidate.”
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present
Respondent: Absent
The Appellant stated that the relevant information has been furnished to him at this stage. He further stated that he is satisfied with the information provided by the PIO.
Decision:
At the outset, the Commission takes grave exception to the absence of PIO during hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. Accordingly, present PIO is hereby directed to file a written explanation justifying the said conduct, failing which an action under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. and 20(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. of the RTI Act will be initiated against him/her, if necessary.
The present PIO is directed to ensure that his written submission reaches the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which ex-parte action will be initiated against him/her.
Perusal of records reveals that information as defined under 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; “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; of the RTI Act from available official records, has been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya
Information Commissioner
Citation: Indian Institute of Information Technology-Allahabad v. CIC/IITAD/A/2022/633839, Date of Decision: 25.08.2023