CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/003039/6448
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003039
Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta
Lecturer, Mechanical Engr. Deptt.
National Institute of Technology,
Kurukshetra -136119
Respondent : Mr. G.R.Samantaray
Central Public Information Officer &
Dy. Registrar
National Institute of Technology
(Institute of National Importance),
Kurukshetra-136119
RTI application filed on : 09/07/2009
PIO replied : 30/07/2009
First Appeal filed on : 27/08/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 01/10/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 02/12/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 14/12/2009
Hearing Held on : 18/01/2010
Information sought:
Appellant sought certified (with date) readable copy (starting from cover page till last page
including pages with Library facsimile) of the following information:
"Copy of M.Tech. Dissertation titled 'Production Planning Problems in Engineering Industry (A
Goal Programming Approach)' submitted in 1991 in the Mechanical Engineering Department,
Regional Engineering College, Kurushetra which is available in the Library, NIT Kurushetra
with the details: Call No. Thesis-M,l 1991 Acc. No.540."
PIO's Reply:
The dissertation submitted by a candidate was a part of the examination. When answer papers
were evaluated, the authority conducting the examination and examiners a evaluating the
answers papers stand in a fiduciary relationship between each other Such relationship warrants
maintenance of confidentiality by both of manner and method of evaluation.
Finally PIO mentioned that the copy of the dissertation sought by the Appellant could not be
supplied as the same is exempted.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply.
Appellant mentioned that he was issued same M.tech Dissertation from the Library on
09/07/2009. The CPIO, NIT Kurushetra refused to provide a certified copy of the same.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Page no. 1 of 3
FAA stated that sought information by the Appellant could not be provided.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Certified copy of the documents not provided.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing on 15 January 2010:
“The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta;
Respondent: Absent;
The PIO has sent a letter on 07/01/2010 asking for an adjournment in the matter since
there is another matter listed where the Respondent and Appellant are same. The hearing is
adjourned to 18/01/2010 at 2.30pm.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 18 January 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta;
Respondent: Mr. G.R.Samantaray, Central Public Information Officer & Dy. Registrar;
The PIO states that all copies of the dissertation are kept in a library and these are
available for every one to take a look. He also states that library users are permitted to get it
issued and taken them with themselves. He has raised the issue of whether a person can use
Right to Information to demand photocopies of the other books which are kept in the library.
The appellant states that he had clearly indicated that he was making a charge of plagiarism since
his contention is that the said thesis based on which an M.Tech has been awarded to Mr. Pankaj
Chandna in 1991 is a complete copy of the thesis submitted by Mr. Yogesh Saxena as his
M.Tech dissertation to IIT Delhi in 1982. The Appellant has produced a copy of Mr. Yogesh
Saxena’s dissertation as also a purported copy of the dissertation by Mr. Pankaj Chandna before
the Commission. The Appellant further alleges that this dissertation by Mr. Pankaj Chandna was
under the guidance of Prof. S.K.Sharma and that the copy in the library of the Institute has Mr.
Sharma’s signature with the date 04/05/1991 on the page of the dissertation.
Decision:
The RTI Act in preamble states,
“AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information
which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Goverments and
their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;”
Thus one of the key objectives of the RTI Act is to improve transparency and contained
corruption. The evidence before the Commission that has been present by the Appellant seems to
show a very strong possibility of plagiarism which is one of the worst forms of corruption. It
appears the Appellant has raised this within the Institute and the Appellant has also produced
before the Commission newspaper cuttings in which these allegations of plagiarism have been
mentioned. The news reports mention that the reporters had spoken to Mr. Pankaj Chandna, and
Mr. J.K. Palit Chairman of the Board of Governors of NIT, Kurukshetra. Thus it appears that the
Institute is well aware of this charge and perhaps does not wish to correct anything. The
appellant has also produced before the Commission by Dy. Registrar of NIT, Kurukshetra of
07/09/2009 addressed to HRD Ministry in which the issued has also been mentioned. Section-
8(2) of the RTI Act states,
“Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions
permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to
Page no. 2 of 3
information, if public interests in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.”
Thus even if an exemption clause of Section 8(1) applies larger public interest would dictate that
the information must be disclosed. In the instant matter the Commission is not going into the
issues of whether any exemption applies but feels there is adequate prima-facie evidence which
shows the possibility of plagiarism. Hence the Commission decides that the attested photocopy
of the dissertation of Mr. Pankaj Chadna must be give to the Appellant.
The appeal is allowed
The PIO is directed to give the complete information to the appellant before
30 January 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
18 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj
Page no. 3 of 3