Times of India: Bhopal: Saturday, 12 April 2025.
The MP high court, while
observing that the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) declining
to disclose information desired by a faculty member of the Indian Institute of
Forest Management (IIFM), Bhopal, reeks of an attempt to shield ‘dishonest and
unqualified' persons, imposed a cost of Rs 25,000, which shall be given to the
petitioner as a litigation fee. The first appellate authority of IIFM and the
Central Public Information Officer will pay the fine, said the court.
Assistant Professor at IIFM, Jayashree Dubey, in her petition before the MP high court, said that IIFM appointed persons selected to the post of associate professor and professor in the year 2000. Officials admitted that the appointment of Dr Prateek Maheshwari as associate professor was illegal as he didn't have the requisite qualification. Two internal committees were formed to look into the appointments made. Following this, IIFM relieved Dr Prateek and other persons selected for appointment of their charge.
The petitioner said that she applied for copies of documents presented by Dr Prateek, other selected candidates, and the report presented by the internal committee. Her application was rejected by the IIFM public information officer and the first appellate authority, and later CIC, too, rejected her appeal, referring to provisions under section 8 (1) (H) and section 11 of the RTI Act, and said that information about a third person can't be given without his consent.
The bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal, while setting aside the CIC order, said that information relating to the process of an inquiry, arrest of accused, and anything that may hamper prosecution in a case is not given under section 8 (1) (H). Under section 8 (1) (J), any personal information that has no relation with any public activity or public interest is not given.
Under section 11 of the RTI Act, the information which requires notice to be issued to a third party is not shared. Sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act prohibits sharing of information on business and commerce protected by law. Central Chief Information Commissioner, Vinod Kumar Tiwari, misinterpreted the provisions of the RTI Act, the court said.
The court further asked to give the desired information to the petitioner free of cost within 15 days and also pay her Rs 25,000 as a litigation fee, to be recovered from the first appellate authority of IIFM and the central public information officer.
Assistant Professor at IIFM, Jayashree Dubey, in her petition before the MP high court, said that IIFM appointed persons selected to the post of associate professor and professor in the year 2000. Officials admitted that the appointment of Dr Prateek Maheshwari as associate professor was illegal as he didn't have the requisite qualification. Two internal committees were formed to look into the appointments made. Following this, IIFM relieved Dr Prateek and other persons selected for appointment of their charge.
The petitioner said that she applied for copies of documents presented by Dr Prateek, other selected candidates, and the report presented by the internal committee. Her application was rejected by the IIFM public information officer and the first appellate authority, and later CIC, too, rejected her appeal, referring to provisions under section 8 (1) (H) and section 11 of the RTI Act, and said that information about a third person can't be given without his consent.
The bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal, while setting aside the CIC order, said that information relating to the process of an inquiry, arrest of accused, and anything that may hamper prosecution in a case is not given under section 8 (1) (H). Under section 8 (1) (J), any personal information that has no relation with any public activity or public interest is not given.
Under section 11 of the RTI Act, the information which requires notice to be issued to a third party is not shared. Sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Act prohibits sharing of information on business and commerce protected by law. Central Chief Information Commissioner, Vinod Kumar Tiwari, misinterpreted the provisions of the RTI Act, the court said.
The court further asked to give the desired information to the petitioner free of cost within 15 days and also pay her Rs 25,000 as a litigation fee, to be recovered from the first appellate authority of IIFM and the central public information officer.
.JPG)
.JPG)
