A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Information about ACP proposal - CIC is unhappy with the contradictory statements made by the Respondent which shows sheer disregard towards their own employees - CIC: Take relevant details from appellant so that requisite information should be provided

Appellant sought copies of noting w.r.t disciplinary proceedings pending against him - In a similar matter, the CIC order granting relief to the appellant has been stayed by Delhi High Court - CIC: no relief can be ordered in the matter at this stage

Percentage of attendance of student enrolled in PH.D. as per UGC - PIO: Information related to the personal information of other students, therefore the same was denied to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - CIC: Denial upheld

CIC: Complainant is arguing on his grievance regarding 3rd MACP and challenging the correctness of the information provided; PIO provided information in the spirit of RTI Act - CIC: Complainant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the Act

Alleging an unethical practices of taking money for passing PG clinical exam candidates, appellant sought to know the “number of times” a third party has been invited as an examiner - CIC: Being a third party service matter, information exempt u/s 8(1)(j)

A candidate sought to know the number of attempts made for the examinations conducted by UPSC - PIO: The number of attempts of the candidates is checked at the time of final stage of selection only; Information was not available in a complied form

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

RTI applicant can seek compensation if a loss or detriment is suffered due to delay

Delhi HC orders removal of news articles and social media posts against a businessman on X

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Considering the relief sought, the Complaint was treated as Second Appeal - CIC: Such information would divert the resources of Respondent public authority and thus hit by Section 7(9); Provide inspection and free of cost information upto 50 pages

7 Sep, 2021

File no. CIC/CUOJK/C/2019/652419

Information sought:

The Complainant filed an online RTI application on 12.07.2019 seeking following information:-

“Provide the complete & updated file with all notings, enclosures & annexures, through which the reminder letter of mine vide letter no. ICB/CUJ/2018/33 dt. 13/09/2018(xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has been dealt with and action taken.”

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 13.08.2019. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint for nonreceipt of desired information from CPIO till date as also for non adjudication of his First Appeal by FAA.

File no. CIC/CUOJK/C/2019/653842

Information sought:

The Complainant filed an online RTI application on 18.07.2019 seeking following information:-

“Dr. Iswar Chand Bidyasagar The Medical Officer of Central University of Jharkhand, Brambe, Ranchi Jharkhand (CUJ) got WORKING CERTIFICATE cum NOC (NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE) vide CUJ Letter with Ref. no. CUJ/PM/93/2010/573 dt. 28, August, 2018 to me (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx). In this regard kindly provide the certified true copy of the file, with complete & updated noting with all enclosures & annexures, through which the above quoted WORKING CERTIFICATE cum NOC has been originated & issued to me, Dr. Iswar Chand Bidyasagar.”

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 19.08.2019. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of desired information from CPIO till date as also non adjudication of his First Appeal by FAA, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

File no. CIC/CUOJK/C/2019/652420

Information sought:

The Complainant filed an online RTI application on 12.07.2019 seeking following information:-

“Provide the certified true copy of the complete & updated file with all noting, enclosures & annexures of the reminder of mine vide letter no. ICB/CUJ/2018/38 dt. 22/10/2018 (xxxxxxxxxxxx) has been dealt with and action taken.”

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 13.08.2019. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on the ground of non- receipt of desired information from the CPIO till date and also non-adjudication of his First Appeal by FAA.

File no. CIC/CUOJK/C/2019/653848

The Complainant filed an online RTI application on 23.07.2019 seeking following information:-

1.Provide the certified true copy of the file, with complete noting, annexures & enclosures, through which the SHOWCAUSE NOTICE vide Letter No. CU/GA/Arrear/24/2017/157: dated 14.5.2018 from CUJ, was originated & issued to Dr. Iswar Chand Bidyasagar MO CUJ.

2.Provide the certified true copy of the file, with complete noting, annexures & enclosures, through which the consequent reply/clarification by Dr Iswar Chand Bidyasagar MO CUJ vide his Letters No. ICB/CUJ/2018/09 dated 16/05/2018, No. ICB/CUJ/2018/11 dated 11/06/2018, No. ICB/CUJ/2018/16 dated 02/07/2018 & No. ICB/CUJ/2018/17 dated 02/07/2018 i/r/t the above quoted SHOWCAUSE NOTICE from CUJ vide Letter No. CU/GA/Arrear/24/2017/157: dated 14.5.2018, was dealt-with and the decision taken.”

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 24.08.2019. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

File no. CIC/CUOJK/C/2019/659090

Information sought:

The Complainant filed an online RTI application on 21.09.2019 seeking following information:-

“Provide the certified true copy of the ALL THE AGENDAS of Central University of Jharkhand Brambe, Ranchi, Jharkhand (CUJ) placed in 28th or any other meeting of The Respected EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (EC) of CUJ held on 20th & 21st of September, 2019 or on some-else day in the Month of September, 2019.”

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

File no. CIC/CUOJK/C/2019/659091

Information sought:

The Complainant filed an online RTI application on 21.09.2019 seeking following information:-

“Provide the certified true copy of the ALL The Draft Minutes of Meeting (MoM) of Central University of Jharkhand Brambe, Ranchi, Jharkhand (CUJ) of 28th or any other meeting of The Respected EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (EC) of CUJ held on 20th & 21st of September, 2019 or on some-else day in the Month of September, 2019.”

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 21.10.2019. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

File no. CIC/CUOJK/C/2019/659093

Information sought:

The Complainant filed an online RTI application on 21.09.2019 seeking following information:-

“Provide the certified true copy of the ALL RESOLUTIONS (PASSED) of Central University of Jharkhand Brambe, Ranchi, Jharkhand (CUJ) of 28th or any other meeting of The Respected EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (EC) of CUJ held on 20th & 21st of September, 2019 or on some-else day in the Month of September, 2019.”

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Complainant: Present through audio-conference.

Respondent: Narendra Kumar,PRO & Nodal PIO along with Advocate Akash Bhushan present through audio-conference.

The instant matters were heard along with 35 other Complaints of the Complainant based on similar subject matter. At the outset of the hearing, the CPIO through their advocate desired to submit that the Complainant is a habitual

RTI Applicant and is vindicating his grievances through the channel of RTI Act against his suspension from the services of the University on the charges of misappropriation and mismanagement on 09.05.2019. That, the Complainant challenged the suspension order before the competent Court and the suspension was revoked, thereafter the University appealed against the said judgment and the division bench of the Court has eventually stayed the suspension order. It was further submitted that in this backdrop it is quite evident from the nature of queries raised in all of these RTI Applications that the Complainant is merely aiming to aid his Court case by seeking a plethora of documents and in some cases, extremely frivolous RTI Applications have been filed seeking such information which has no relevance to transparency or probity. That, in a single year the Complainant has filed 105 RTI Applications clogging the entire administration of the University, all of which is to advance his personal interests and not any larger public interest.

The Complainant on the other hand submitted that there are 8 CBI cases lodged against the Vice Chancellor of the University and that an inquiry is going on against the FAA-cum-Registrar upon the recommendations of MHRD and they have been found guilty of committing fraud. That, without any authority he was terminated from the University because he was the Complainant before the CBI & MHRD and that he has been framed with different charges by the University to merely harass him, and therefore through these RTI Applications he has sought for all the documents based on which he has been charged and suspended but clearly the University does not have any documents to provide to him. He further brought the attention of the bench to an earlier order of the Commission wherein the CPIO of the University was imposed with maximum penalty but instead of complying with the order, the University has challenged the same before the High Court and the CPIO & FAA are defying the provisions of the RTI Act in a routine manner and in some cases, the CPIO takes upon the charge of FAA and responds to the First Appeals.

Further, with specific reference to the instant cases, Advocate of the Respondent submitted that reply to each of these RTI Application(s) was provided to the Complainant, a list of which is mentioned below in tabular form -

File Nos. Date of Reply Text of RTI 653853 20.12.2019 7 653854 21.11.2019 No such information is available. 656262 31.12.2019

Lastly, upon a query from the Commission, the Advocate of the Respondent agreed to reiterate the offer of inspection of relevant records to the Complainant.

Decision:

At the outset, considering the relief sought by the Complainant, the instant Complaint is treated as Second Appeal.

Further, the Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record and considering the nature and intensity of information sought by the Complainant through instant RTI Applications as also the efforts required from the CPIO to collate and compile , is of the considered opinion that such information would concededly divert the resources of Respondent public authority and thus hit by Section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of RTI Act.

In view of the foregoing observation, the Commission is in agreement with the submissions of Respondent’s Advocate made during hearing and hereby directs the Respondent to reiterate another opportunity of inspection of the relevant and available records related to the instant RTI Application(s) to the Complainant on a mutually decided date & time. The intimation of the date and time of inspection will be provided to the Complainant telephonically and in writing by the Respondent and a copy of the documents, as desired by the Complainant during the inspection will be provided to him free of cost upto 50 pages and beyond this limit, fees may be charged as per Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012. A compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the Respondent stipulating the details of the information provided and/or inspection provided, if any thereof within 40 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The Complainant is also advised to make judicious use of his right to information in future.

The instant complaint(s) are disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Iswar Chand Bidyasagar v. Central University of Jharkhand in File No: CIC/CUOJK/C/2019/652419 CIC/CUOJK/C/2019/653842 CIC/CUOJK/C/2019/652420 CIC/CUOJK/C/2019/653848 CIC/CUOJK/C/2019/659090 CIC/CUOJK/C/2019/659091 CIC/CUOJK/C/2019/659093, Date of Decision: 08/07/2021

Considering the relief sought, the Complaint was treated as Second Appeal - CIC: Such information would divert the resources of Respondent public authority and thus hit by Section 7(9); Provide inspection and free of cost information upto 50 pages

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.