Central Information CommissionDarshan Singh vs Central University Of Punjab on 26 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/CUOPJ/A/2017/145022-BJ
Adv. Darshan Singh,
                                                                          ....अपीलकता
/Appellant
                                            VERSUS
                                              बनाम

CPIO,
Assistant Registrar (Accounts-II),
Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014
                                                                      ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing       :              25.09.2018
Date of Decision      :              26.09.2018

Date of RTI application                                                     25.10.2016
CPIO's response                                                             18.11.2016
Date of the First Appeal                                                    17.12.2016
First Appellate Authority's response                                        03.02.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission                        03.07.2017

                                           ORDERFACTS:The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the admission
of Mr. Gaurav Rattan, whether the fees deposited by the candidate was either cash or cheque
payment, or any other mode of payment, if fees were deposited on Account Payee then whose
account the payment was received in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th year etc.

The CPIO, vide letter dated 18.11.2016, provided a Para-wise reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied
by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 03.02.2017,
for point 01 upheld the response of the CPIO, and for point 02, stated that the information sought
was not available in her office, therefore, the same could not be furnished.Page 1 of 4HEARING:Facts emerging during the hearing:The following were present:Appellant: Mr. Balvinder Singh Appellant's representative through VC;
Respondent: Mrs. Nisha, AR through VC;The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that no satisfactory
information was received by him, till date. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that a suitable
response had been furnished vide their letter dated 18.11.2016 to the Appellant wherein for point
no. 01Section 2(f)of the RTI Act, 2005 was referred to. The FAA had also concurred with the
response. During the hearing, the Respondent drew the attention of the Commission to the Third
Party information being sought by the Appellant which was acknowledged by him.The Commission referred to the definition of information u/sSection 2(f)of the RTI Act, 2005
which is reproduced below:"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-
       mails, 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 ofSection 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 Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), 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' insection 2(f)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 theRTI 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 underSection 2(f)which provides:"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-
       mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report,Page 2 of 4papers, 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 underSection 6of the RTI Act can get any
       information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under
       law. Of course, under theRTI Actan 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. UnderSection 6of
       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."As regards the information sought regarding the details of admission of Mr. Gaurav Rattan, the
Commission observed that the same fell in the category of Third Party information which was
exempted from disclosure as perSection 8(1)(j)of the RTI Act, 2005.The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case ofUnion Public Service Commission v. Dr.
Mahesh Mangalat (Date of Decision: 17th March, 2015) (W.P.(C) No. 7431/2011) had held:-"18. Prior to the enactment of theRTI Act, access to any information pertaining to public
       authorities was correlated to the locus standi of the requestor. In other words, it was
       necessary for the information-seeker to show why he/she wanted the information before a
       decision could be made to give or not to give the information sought by him. With the
       enactment of theRTI Actthis requirement has been changed drastically. The present Act
       abolishes the concept of locus standi as undersection 6(2)of the RTI Act no reasons
       need to be given for seeking information. However, this restriction on disclosure of
       reasons cannot be misconstrued to mean that any information pertaining to a public
       authority or its employees is public information.19. It is a settled law that for seeking personal information regarding any employee of
       the public authority the applicant must disclose a "sustainable public interest‟. EvenSection 8(1) (j)of the RTI Act was enacted to ensure that all information furnished to
       public authorities including personal information is not given free access to. As per
       this Section unless the CPIO or the State PIO or the appellate authority, as the case
       may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies, the disclosure of any such
       information that invades the privacy of an individual is not permissible.
Moreover, the Commission relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India inBihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein in
the context of exemption underSection 8 (1) (j)of the RTI Act, 2005, the Court had held thatPage 3 of 4exemption provided underSection 8of the Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances
of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. The relevant observations are
mentioned as under:"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.)].23. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the
       consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to the circumstances of
       a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring
       that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors
       stated in the provision."The Appellant was not able to contest the submission of the Respondent or to substantiate his
claims further regarding malafide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it
without any reasonable cause.DECISION:Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the
light of aforementioned decisions, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the
matter.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: 26.09.2018Page 4 of 4