Live Law: Hyderabad: Wednesday,
September 28, 2016.
The Central
Information Commissioner (CIC) has imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 on the Public Information
Officer (PIO) of the English & Foreign Language University (EFLU),
Hyderabad, for denial of information sought under the RTI Act. The commission
also warned the public authority of the university to deal with RTI issues only
through the PIO without involving consultants in official communication under
the RTI Act.
The
appellant’s daughter had secured 3rd rank in Lucknow campus and 100th rank in
Hyderabad campus in the EFLU entrance test for BA (Hons) English in 2015. She
got admission to Lucknow campus, but wanted transfer to Hyderabad campus. The
appellant’s complaint is that despite three vacant seats, the university closed
admissions prematurely. The candidate’s father said that as per the sliding
rule principle, his daughter was entitled for an admission to Hyderabad campus.
He alleged that a candidate who was not even applicant was given admission,
which he came to know through the list submitted to the Parliamentary Committee
on Public Accounts.
He filed an
RTI query seeking information regarding the admission process and the details
of action taken of transfer requests. The PIO, however, stated that the
information sought was ready but due to time crunch, could not be dispatched
and also stated that transfer is not possible as his daughter had not attained
the required cutoff for the Hyderabad campus. The PIO denied the allegation
that admission was given to a candidate who was not an applicant for the
entrance examination.
The appellant
filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging denial of admission to her
daughter. The Commission in this respect directed the PIO to facilitate
inspection of the files and documents of admission during the 3rd week of July
2016, on a date convenient to the appellant.
The appellant
complained that when he attended scheduled inspection, some of the files were
not kept ready. He was made unnecessarily to travel to Hyderabad. He felt
harassed. He also stated that he should be paid compensation for denial of
information till date.
While
pointing out the omissions, CIC M Sridhar Acharyulu observed, “The Commission
finds that the PIO should have kept ready all the relevant files instead of
claiming excuses that the file is held by somebody. The Commission also records
its objection to the impediments created by the consultant by not revealing the
contents of e-mail, refusing to consider SMS request and causing agony to the
appellant coming from a long distance for a scheduled inspection.” The
commission ordered the respondent authority to provide certified copies of
these documents free of cost, as they failed to provide them on the scheduled
day.
The
commission taking a lenient posture keeping in view PIO’s ill-health, ordered
the authority to pay a fine of Rs 5,000 towards compensation within a month of
the issue of the order and observed: “The Commission finds that the information
that should have been given in the first instance itself was denied to the
appellant, which caused him to travel from a distance and take inspection only
after the CIC directed. EFLU should have avoided this difficulty caused to the
appellant, had they acted according to letter and spirit of RTI Act.”