Central Information CommissionManish J Chauhan vs Indian Institute Of Technology ... on 25 September, 2018के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
                              Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                  नई  द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/IITGW/A/2017/146859-BJ
Mr. Manish J. Chauhan
                                                                         ....अपीलकता
/Appellant
                                           VERSUS
                                              बनाम

CPIO,
Indian Institute of Technology,
Near Doul Gobinda Road, Amingaon,
North Guwahati, Assam-781039

                                                                     ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing       :              24.09.2018
Date of Decision      :              25.09.2018

Date of RTI application                                                     28.11.2016
CPIO's response                                                             16.12.2016
Date of the First Appeal                                                    17.12.2016
First Appellate Authority's response                                        06.01.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission                        07.07.2017

                                          ORDERFACTS:The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding name (self,
father & surname) of all the students who got admitted in all IIT under the category of OBC
Non-Creamy Layer SC (PWD), ST (PWD) in the Academic Year 2016-17 for 04 years degree
course / 5 years integrated course, income declared by their parents while seeking admission etc.

The CPIO, vide letter dated 16.12.2016, provided a point-wise information to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide
its order dated 06.01.2017, concurred with the response of the CPIO.Page 1 of 4HEARING:Facts emerging during the hearing:The following were present:Appellant: Mr. Manish J. Chauhan through VC;Respondent: Mr. D. Boro, PIO & Dy. Registrar (EO cum SRC) through VC;The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that complete and
satisfactory details had not been received whereas he received such information from other IITs.
In its reply, the Respondent submitted that due to confusion in respect of the information
received by them from Academic Affairs Department, they were in the process of reconciling the
details and that the same would be furnished to the Appellant within a week.The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 17.09.2018
wherein while explaining the background of the case, it was prayed to the Commission to advise
the Respondent to furnish him the desired information relating to the category of OBC (NCL)
and SC/ST Students of IIT Guwahati and all IITs for the Academic Year 2016-17.The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated
19.09.2018 wherein while reiterating the RTI application, reply/order of the CPIO/FAA, it was
submitted that the information sought by the RTI applicant should be provided by the custodian
of information i.e. Chairman (JEE Cell)/Academic Affairs. However, one could view the JEE
(Adv) 2016 report from their website, as available in the public domain, where all the relevant
information was available (names were not available) input as provided by (JEE Cell) total 495
pages. The Appellant had not received a copy of the written submission.The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be
displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to
seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective
of theRTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms.Section 4(2)of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-
motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the
Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use ofRTI Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter ofCBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay
and Ors2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information
       are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption
       and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions ofRTI Actshould be
       enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary
       information under Clause (b) ofSection 4(1)of the Act which relates to securing
       transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging
       corruption."Page 2 of 4The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009
Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible
       should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
       Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the
       explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the
       public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet,
       etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading ofSection 4of the RTI Act that the information,
       which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to
       the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty
       bound by virtue of the provisions ofSection 4of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated
       inSection 4(1)(b)and4(1)(c)on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of
       theRTI Actto obtain the information."Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision ofGeneral Manager Finance Air India Ltd &
Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No.205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:"8.The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access
       to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency
       and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and
       transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain
       corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the
       governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of
       independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further
       evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:A. Publish inter alia:i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in
       discharging of its functions;iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated
       and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [seeSection 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible
       [seeSection 4(2)]."The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of Sayyed Education Society v. State of
Maharashtra, WP 1305/2011 dated 12.02.2014 had held that public authorities are under aPage 3 of 4statutory obligation to maintain records and disseminate as per the provisions of theSection 4of
the RTI Act, 2005. The High Court in this respect, held as under:"Needless to state that as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 14 in
       the case ofCBSE and Another(supra), Public Authorities are under an obligation to
       maintain records and disseminate the information in the manner provided underSection
       4of the RTI act. The submission of the petitioner that it is an onerous task to supply
       documents, therefore is required to be rejected. The Law mandates preserving of
       documents, supplying copies thereof to the applicant, in our view, cannot be said to be an
       onerous task."Above all the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N.
Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil)
No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 had held as under:"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to
       information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of
       Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in
       Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of
       democracy."DECISION:Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the
Commission directs the CPIO to disclose the information sought by the Appellant within a
period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which penal action underSection
20(1)of the RTI Act, 2005 shall be initiated.The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
                                                  Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत         त)


K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/[email protected]दनांक / Date: 25.09.2018Page 4 of 4