CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Near Post Office
Opp. Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110067.
Tel : + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000629/4091Adjucnt-I
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000629
SHOWCAUSE HEARING:
Complainant : Mr. S.K. Dogra
Advocate, District Court
Hamirpur (H.P.)
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Manipal University
Madav Nagar, Manipal
Karnataka 576104
BACKGROUND
:
Mr. S.K. Dogra had filed a RTI application with the PIO, Manipal University on 07/02/2009
asking for certain information. Since no reply was received within the mandated time of 30 days, he
had filed a complaint under Section 18 to the Commission.
The Commission issued a notice to the PIO on 10/06/2009 asking him to supply the
information by 05/07/2009 and sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the
mandated time. The PIO vide letter dated 19/06/2009 informed the Commission that the Manipal
University being a public authority does not come under the purview of the RTI Act 2005. Dr. G.K.
Prabhu, Registrar of Manipal University added, ” Manipal University formerly known as Manipal
Academy of Higher Education (MAHE) has been declared to be a Deemed University and thus the
above referred Act is not applicable to Manipal University & its constituent institutions.”
The Commission in decision number: CIC/OK/A/2008/01098/SG/2550 of 31 March 2009 has ruled,
“Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 provides for the constitution of
Deemed Universities. Section 3 reads as follows:-
“The Central Government may, on the advice of the Commission, declare by notification in the
Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a University, shall be deemed to
be a University for the purpose of this Act, and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of
this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within the meaning of clause (f) of
Section 2.”
It appears from Section 3 that deemed Universities are declared to be so by notification in the official
Gazette by the Central Government. Of this is the case, then a deemed University may come with in
the definition of “Public Authority”. As mentioned earlier, “Public Authority” does include any
authority or body established or constituted by notification issued by the appropriate
Government.”……………… “”University” means a University established or incorporated by or under
a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation
with the University concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations
made in this behalf under this Act. Manipal University by virtue of being a Deemed University is a
Public authority as defined under the RTI act.
Commission’s Decision dated 13 July 2009:
“The Complaint is allowed.
The Manipal University will appoint the PIO and the First Appellate Authority before 25 July 2009.
The PIO will then provide the information to the Complainant before August 15, 2009.”
Facts leading to Showcause:
Dr. G.K.Prabhu, Registrar vide his letter dated 21.07.2009 requested the Commission to give
him additional 15 days. The Commission vide letter dated 13/08/2009 gave additional time to the PIO
which was applicable from 15/08/2009 to 30/08/2009. The Commission again received a letter from
Registrar in which he had claimed that the University is not a public authority under Section 2(h)
hence RTI Act is not applicable to him. Since the PIO did not raised this issue during the hearing and
the Commission has categorically declared that the University is public authority. Therefore it
appeared that the PIO is knowingly concealing the information and was directed to present before the
Commission to showcause why penalty should not be levied on him under Section 20(1).
Relevant Facts that emerged during Hearing on 24 September 2009:
“The following were present:
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. R.Karuppiah, General Manager, Manipal University Learning Pvt. Ltd., 610 &
611, Prakash Deep Building, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001
The Respondent has produced an order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka dated
17/09/2009 staying the imposition of penalty for a period of three months by the Commission. The
order is silent about whether the Hon’ble Court has given any stay on the order of the Commission
declaring Manipal University is a public authority under the RTI Act. However, in deference to the
orders of the Hon’ble High Court we are adjourning the matter. The matter will be heard on 04 January
2010 at 10.00AM. If there are any orders any the Hon’ble Court these will also be presented before the
Commission.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 4 January 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. R.Karuppiah, General Manager, Manipal University Learning Pvt. Ltd., 610 &
611, Prakash Deep Building, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001
The Respondent has again produced an order by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka dated
17/12/2009 continuing the stay order granted earlier. In view of this the respondent has requested the
Commission to adjourn the matter for another three months. The Commission had earlier in its order of
24 September 2009 recorded the fact that the stay had only been given with respect to imposition of
penalty. There is no mention in the earlier order or the subsequent order that the stay covers the
decision of this Commission holding that the Manipal University is a public authority. It is not at all
clear that the High Court has consciously stayed the Commission’s decision declaring Manipal
University as a Public Authority. The Commission in deference to the order issued by the Hon’ble
Karnataka High Court adjourning the matter by another three months. However, if there is no specific
mention in the courts’ order that the court is staying the decision of this Commission deciding that
Manipal University is a public authority, the Commission will enforce its decision on the matter of
Manipal University being a public authority. The respondent is directed to bring this to the attention of
the Hon’ble Court.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
4 January 2010