Respondent: Information sought was very large & voluminous; It tantamounts to diverting the meagre resources of the Public Authority - CIC advised the Appellant to specify the details of institutions to enable the Respondents to furnish the information
7 Mar, 2019
RTI 1: CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/138043-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the complete documents belonging to MHRD including the Note-sheets and various correspondences between MHRD and other offices relating to the appointment of various Directors of different Schools of Planning and Architecture appointed by the Government of India since 01.01.2010. Dissatisfied due to the non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. (During the hearing, MHRD informed that vide letter dated 28.02.2018, a sum of Rs. 4,686/- for photocopying 2343 pages was sought which was not deposited).
RTI 2: CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/138042/DHEDU-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the complete documents belonging to MHRD including the Note-sheets and various correspondences between MHRD and other offices relating to the appointment of various Directors of different National Institutes of Technology (NITs) by the Government of India since 01.01.2010.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 26.02.2018 stated that the Appellant had not specified any particular information that she sought and that she may either state the particular document she sought or visit the MHRD for the inspection of the files desired by her. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. (During the hearing, MHRD informed that vide letter dated 07.09.2018 the First Appeal was replied giving details of the appointments for the last 05 years).
RTI 3: CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/138041-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the complete documents belonging to MHRD including the Note-sheets and various correspondences between MHRD and other offices relating to the appointment of various Directors of different Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) appointed by the Government of India since 01.01.2010 The CPIO, vide its letter dated 01.03.2018 informed the Appellant that the information sought by her was spread across several files containing voluminous documents and advised her to visit the office of the CPIO. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. (During the hearing, MHRD informed that the First Appeal remained unanswered due to the transfer of the officials).
RTI – 4 File No. CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/138040-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the complete documents belonging to MHRD including the Note-sheets and various correspondences between MHRD and other offices relating to the appointments of various Directors of different IITs made by the Government of India since 01.01.2010 etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.03.2018 requested the Appellant to send Rs. 3,976/- (Rs. 2/- copy) for 1988 pages by way of IPO/DD or through any other mode of payment mentioned in RTI Act, 2005. On receipt of the payment, the documents would be provided to her. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAAs order, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. (During the hearing, MHRD informed that vide letter dated 02.01.2019, the available information was sent to the Appellant which was received by her).
RTI – 5 File No. CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/138039-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the complete documents belonging to MHRD including the Note-sheets and various correspondences between MHRD and other offices relating to the appointments of members along with the Chairman etc. of the Councils/Commission (names as referred in the RTI application) since 01.01.2010 etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 21.02.2018 stated that the information sought by the Appellant was voluminous in nature and therefore, offered an inspection of the documents. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAAs order, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. (During the hearing, MHRD sought specific details).
RTI – 6 File No. CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/138037-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the complete documents belonging to MHRD including the Note-sheets and various correspondence between MHRD and other offices relating to the appointments of the Vice Chancellor of the Central University (names as referred in the RTI application) since 01.01.2010 etc. Dissatisfied due to non- receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. (During the hearing, MHRD informed that vide letter dated 24.12.2018, the information as available was furnished which was received by the Appellant).
RTI 7: CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/163416-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the copy of one or more files in the Ministry of Human Resource Development (including Note-sheet and Correspondence of the MHRD with various other offices) regarding a news article about the Joint Entrance Examination (Mains) and the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test to be conducted twice a year instead of once in view of the official statements made by the Minister Shri Prakash Javadekar. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 31.07.2018 provided a copy of the Press Information Bureau regarding NTA to conduct entrance examinations for Higher Educational Institutions. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. (During the hearing, MHRD informed that a copy of the press release was provided and no other correspondence was available on record. The First Appeal was replied on 19.11.2018).
RTI 8: CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/164347-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the copy of documents of the Ministry of Minority Affairs regarding files related to the appointments of various Chairpersons and members of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions since 01.01.2010 and issues related thereto Dissatisfied due to the non-receipt of any response from the CPIO within the stipulated time, the Appellant approached the FAA. However, the CPIO vide its letter dated 25.09.2018 provided information partially and stated that the files containing the required information were voluminous and asked her to visit the office and inspect the relevant files since it was not clear as to which documents were sought. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. (During the hearing, MHRD informed that vide letter dated 28.12.2018 and 02.01.2019 additional information as held on record was provided and the First Appeal was answered on 24.09.2018).
RTI 9: CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/142914-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the complete documents belonging to MHRD including the Note-sheets and various correspondences between MHRD and other offices relating to the appointment of various Directors of different Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) appointed by the Government of India since 01.01.2010 Dissatisfied by the non-receipt of any response from the CPIO within the stipulated time period of 30 days, the Appellant approached the FAA on 15.03.2018. However, the CPIO vide its letter dated 04.04.2018 denied the disclosure of information under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was further stated that the information sought contained personal information, the disclosure of which had no relation to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
RTI – 10 File No. CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/141416-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the complete documents belonging to MHRD including the Note-sheets and various correspondences between MHRD and other offices relating to the appointment of Vice Chancellor of the Central University (names as referred in the RTI application) since 01.01.2010 etc. Dissatisfied due to non- receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. (During the hearing, MHRD informed that vide letter dated 13.03.2018 / 06.04.2018, the CPIO / FAA had replied to the RTI application requesting for inspection of the relevant documents).
RTI 11: CIC/DFERT/A/2018/157872-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the copy of one or more files in the Department of Fertilizer (including Note-sheet and Correspondence of the Department with various other offices) regarding appointment made to the post of Chairman, Chief Executive and Functional Directors in IFFCO since 01.01.2010 The CPIO, D/o Fertilizers, M/o Chemicals and Fertilizers vide its letter dated 25.07.2018 transferred the application under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Secretary, M/o Agriculture and the Central Registrar, Jt. Secretary (Credit and Coop), D/o Agriculture and Cooperation, M/o Agriculture. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. (During the hearing, Ministry officials denied receipt of RTI application and therefore to facilitate the reply, a copy of the RTI application was hand delivered to them).
RTI 12: CIC/DFERT/A/2018/157865-BJ
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the copy of one or more files in the Department of Fertilizer (including Note-sheet and Correspondence of the Department with various other offices) regarding appointment made to the Representative General Body (RGB) consisting of Members of the Board of Directors and other delegates. The CPIO, D/o Fertilizers, M/o Chemicals and Fertilizers vide its letter dated 25.07.2018 transferred the application under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Secretary, M/o Agriculture and the Central Registrar, Jt. Secretary (Credit and Coop), D/o Agriculture and Cooperation, M/o Agriculture. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. (During the hearing, Ministry officials denied receipt of RTI application and therefore to facilitate the reply, a copy of the RTI application was hand delivered to them).
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Nutan Thakur through VC;
Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, US, MHRD; Mr. Umesh Kumar, US/CPIO, MHRD; Mr. Kundan Nath, US/ CPIO; Mr. Praveer Saxena, US/ CPIO; Mr. Amit Kumar, ASO; Mr. Umesh Kumar, US/CPIO; Ms. Tulsi Negi, SO; Ms. Urmil K. Biltoria, SO / CPIO and Mr. P. K. Singh, US ; and Mr. Jitender Nagar, Asst. Commissioner and Mr. A. Sahoo, US;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of her RTI applications and stated that the information sought in all these RTI applications was not provided. In its reply, the Respondents unanimously argued that the information sought in respect of different institutions was very large and voluminous and it tantamounts to diverting the meagre resources of the Public Authority thereby impacting the normal functioning of its activities. During the hearing, the Respondents urged the Appellant to specify details in respect of the Institutions for which the information was being sought so that the same could be culled out from their records. All the Respondents present at the hearing expressed their serious concern over the large and voluminous data being sought and their inability to cope up with such abnormally high volume of records to search from. It was suggested that the Appellant could reconsider seeking specific details in particular matters of public interest if she so desired so that the same could be identified and furnished. The Appellant agreed to the suggestion made by the Respondents and expressed her willingness to specify details in individual cases. The Appellant reiterated the contents of her RTI applications and stated that the information sought in all these RTI applications was not provided. In its reply, the Respondents unanimously argued that the information sought in respect of different institutions was very large and voluminous and it tantamounts to diverting the meagre resources of the Public Authority thereby impacting the normal functioning of its activities. During the hearing, the Respondents urged the Appellant to specify details in respect of the Institutions for which the information was being sought so that the same could be culled out from their records. All the Respondents present at the hearing expressed their serious concern over the large and voluminous data being sought and their inability to cope up with such abnormally high volume of records to search from. It was suggested that the Appellant could reconsider seeking specific details in particular matters of public interest if she so desired so that the same could be identified and furnished. The Appellant agreed to the suggestion made by the Respondents and expressed her willingness to specify details in individual cases.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated Nil (in Appeal No.:- CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/138043-BJ) wherein it was stated that there was no response from the CPIO/ FAA as far. Hence, it was prayed to provide the information, since there was no response and there existed no reason to deny the information sought. The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 28.12.2018 (in Appeal No.:- CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/138043-BJ) wherein it was stated that on 26.02.2018, the Appellant was informed that the documents sought by her were approximately 07 years old and the Appellant had not specified any specific information. Since the documents asked for were old, voluminous and scattered she was requested to either specify particular documents or visit MHRD for inspection of files. The First Appeal dated 08.04.2018 was replied vide order dated 07.09.2018 enclosing the copies of the orders issued for Directors appointed during the last five years and she was again requested to specify the documents/ information as documents containing the notings, correspondence, etc were quite voluminous or the same could be inspected on the date and time convenient to her.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated Nil (in Appeal No.:- CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/138042/DHEDU-BJ; CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/138041-BJ) wherein while re-iterating the reply of the CPIO, it was submitted that since it was not possible to visit the office of Respondent in Delhi for inspection hence she had filed a First Appeal which was not replied. Hence it was prayed that the entire documents sought be provided since there was no reason or legal provision as per the RTI Act, 2005 to deny the information.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated Nil (in Appeal No.:- CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/138040-BJ) wherein while re-iterating the reply of the CPIO it was stated that there was no reply from the FAA. It was submitted that the FAA gave additional cost for both the Note-sheet and correspondence while she had prayed to provide additional cost only for Notesheet. Thus, while submitting that the information was improperly denied, it was submitted that since the FAA failed in its duty to respond within the time limit, it was now imperative to provide the note-sheet free of cost, as per the provisions of Section 7 of the RTI Act.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated Nil (in Appeal No.:- CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/138039-BJ) wherein it was stated that the CPIO vide letter dated 12.03.2018 sought Rs. 3000 as additional fee. In the First Appeal, she had requested to provide additional cost only for the note-sheet and not for the rest of the correspondence. There was no reply from the FAA so far despite passing of 45 days period. The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 31.12.2018 (in Appeal No.:- CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/138039-BJ) wherein while reiterating the contents of the RTI application, reply of the CPIO/FAA, it was submitted that the CPIO in its reply had categorically offered an inspection of the documents as the information sought by the Appellant was voluminous in nature. The FAA had also informed the Appellant that the information sought by her runs into approximately 2250 pages, furnishing the same would take a lot of valuable time of the Ministry to get the photocopy of all these files as also the postal charges for sending such huge document at the address of the Appellant. Therefore, following the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in case of large and voluminous documents, an inspection was again offered by the FAA or requested to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- for obtaining the same and hence a suitable action in their part had already been taken.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated Nil (in Appeal No.:- CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/138037-BJ) wherein it was stated that there was no response from the CPIO/ FAA as far. Hence, it was prayed to provide the information free of cost.
The Commission also was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 02.01.2019 (in Appeal No.:- CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/164347-BJ) wherein it was stated that the noting and correspondence portion consisted of 103 and 571 pages respectively, the photocopies of which could be provided to the Appellant on payment of Rs. 2/- per page either in cash or through IPO/ DD/ Banker’s Cheque in favour of the Accounts Officer of the Ministry of HRD.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated Nil (in Appeal No.:- CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/142914-BJ) wherein it was stated that the reply of the CPIO was incorrect since the matter was not personal information but related to documents belonging to the M/o Human Resource Development (MHRD). It was explained that appointment of Directors of IIM was not personal information but was purely public work. While praying for providing the information free of cost, the Appellant submitted that it would be prudent if the Respondent could provide the information for the last few years which could be easily provided without much strain and disturbance to routine work. It was specifically to provide the note-sheet since it would be of much greater help in analyzing the matter.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated Nil (in Appeal No.:- CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/141416-BJ) wherein it was stated that there was no response from the CPIO/ FAA as far. Hence, it was prayed to provide the information, free of cost
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated Nil (Appeal Nos.:- CIC/DFERT/A/2018/157872-BJ; CIC/DFERT/A/2018/157865-BJ) wherein while reiterating the reply of the CPIO, it was submitted that there was no response to the First Appeal filed by her. Thus, it was stated that there was no response from the CPIO/ FAA of the D/o Agriculture and Central Registrar/ Jt. Secretary (Credit and Cooperative). Thus, it was prayed to provide the information free of cost under the provisions of Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent, M/o Agriculture & FW, D/o Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare dated 19.12.2018 (Appeal Nos.:- CIC/DFERT/A/2018/157872-BJ; CIC/DFERT/A/2018/157865-BJ) wherein it was informed that the Commission’s hearing notice scheduled for 08.01.2019 was received in RTI Cell on 19.12.2018 which was forwarded by them to the Dy. Director (Coop. & CPIO) and AD (Coop. & CPIO), DAC & FW, New Delhi for further necessary action as the subject matter of the hearing pertained to the Cooperation Division.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 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; “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, 2005 which is reproduced below:
“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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.”
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
“(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 ........”
In this context a reference was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... “It is also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in 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; “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 Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.”
Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. “....Under the RTI Act “information” is 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; “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; which provides: “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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.”
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed.”
7. “....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the “public authority” under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him.”
The Commission also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
The Commission further referred to the following observations made by the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the matter of State Information Commission vs. Tushar Dhananjay Mandlekar, LPA No. 276/ 2012 in Writ Petition No. 3818/2010 (D) dated 30.07.2012 which is relevant to the present matter:
“It is apparent from a reading of what is stated above that instead of seeking information on some specific issues, the respondent sought general information on scores of matters. The application is vague and the application does not make it clear to the Information Officer as to what information is actually sought by the respondent from the Officer. It was literally impossible for the appellants, as pointed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, to supply the entire information sought by the respondent to the respondent within a period of 30 days. The documents ran into 3419 pages. We had asked the respondent while hearing of this letters patent appeal as to what action did the respondent take in pursuance of the information sought by the respondent after the information was supplied and it was replied by the respondent appearing in person that nothing was done on the basis of the information supplied by the appellants as there was some delay in supplying the information. It is really surprising that thousands of documents are being sought by the respondent from the authorities and none of the documents is admittedly brought into use. We are clearly of the view in the aforesaid backdrop that the application was filed with a mala fide intention and with a view to abuse the process of law.
In the aforesaid set of facts, we feel that there is no justification for imposing the costs of Rs. 2,000/- on the appellant no.2. The principle of lex non cogit ad impossibilia is clearly applicable to the facts of the case. Law does not compel a person to do that what is impossible. In the facts of the present case, we feel that it was impossible for the appellant no. 2 to supply the information which ran into thousands of pages to the respondent within a period of 30 days, as those pages were not readily available with the respondent on the day the application was filed and the Officers were required to search and collect the information, which was required to be supplied to the applicant.”
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Shyam Kunwar vs. CIC and Ors., W.P. (C) 5099/ 2016 dated 30.05.2016 had held as under:
“Upon perusal of the RTI application filed by the petitioner in which information of attendance of all teachers have been asked for between the years 1993 and 2001, this Court is of the opinion that the information asked for is stale and no element of public interest is involved. It seems to this Court that the petitioner’s queries are at best a fishing and roving enquiry to challenge ‘Mr.Arun Arya’s meteoric rise from UDC to youngest ever Principal’”
The Commission further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term “Public Interest” held:
“22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)].”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of “public interest’, which is stated as under:
“Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus: "Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows : Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government....”
In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :
“.............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country...........”
Every action of a Public Authority is expected to be carried out in Public Interest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi, etc vs. State of UP and Ors., 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 625 dated 20.09.1990 wherein it had been held as under:
“Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest.”
Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of LIC of India vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811 dated 10.05.1995 had held as under:
“Every action of the public authority or the person acting in public interest or its acts give rise to public element, should be guided by public interest. It is the exercise of the public power or action hedged with public element becomes open to challenge.”
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission advised the Appellant to specify the details of institutions for which the information was being sought so as to enable the Respondents to furnish the same in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, as agreed by the Appellant during the hearing.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka
Information Commissioner
Citation: Dr. Nutan Thakur v. CPIO, Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education; CPIO, Ministry of HRD Department of Higher Education (Minority Division); CPIO, Ministry of HRD Department of Higher Education, Technical Section; CPIO, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers Department of Fertilizers; CPIO Ministry of Agriculture & FW Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare; CPIO Office of the Jt. Secretary (Credit & Coop) Ministry of Agriculture & FW Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare in Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/138043-BJ+ CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/138042/DHEDU-BJ + CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/138041-BJ + CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/138040-BJ+ CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/138039-BJ+ CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/138037-BJ + CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/163416-BJ+ CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/164347-BJ + CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/142914-BJ + CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/141416-BJ+ CIC/DFERT/A/2018/157872-BJ + CIC/DFERT/A/2018/157865-BJ, Date of Decision : 09.01.2019