Central Information Commission
Mr. A. Mani vs Vinayaka Missions University on 6 November, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001529/5400
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001529
Complainant : Mr. A. Mani
Member, Cal. Math. Soc.
9/1B, Jatin Bagchi Road,
Kolkata - 700029.
West Bengal.
Public Information Officer : Registrar
Vinayaka Missions University
Sankari Main Road (NH-47),
Ariyanoor, Salem - 636308
Tamil Nadu.
Decision:
The Complainant had filed an RTI application with the PIO on 27/08/2009 asking for
certain information. He received a reply from Prof. Y. Abraham, the Registrar, dated
24/09/2009 stating that the University does not come under the purview of the RTI Act. The
Complainant has therefore filed a complaint with the Commission under Section 18 of the
RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission in its earlier decision no. CIC/SG/C/2009/000375/4522 dated
21/08/2009 had ruled that as Vinayaka Missions University is a deemed University and it has
been set up by a notification, it is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The
Complaint had been allowed. The University was further directed to appoint a PIO and First
Appellate Authority as per the provisions of the RTI Act before 15 September 2009.
The Commission has been informed that the University has filed a writ petition in the
Madras High Court to quash the previous order of the Commission. However, the
Commission is not aware of any stay order that has been passed by the Madras High Court.
Justice Variava of the Supreme Court's has held in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir
Singh AIR 2004 SC 2141 that-
"...unless there is stay obtained from a higher forum, the mere fact of filing of an
appeal/revision will not entitle the authority to not comply with the order of the
Forum. Even though the authority may have filed an appeal/revision, if no stay is
obtained or if stay is refused, the order must be complied with."
Therefore, the Commission's order is still in force and the PIO and First Appellate
Authority should have been appointed by the University before 15/09/2009. Furthermore, as it
was decided by the Commission on 21/08/2009 that the University is a public authority, any
RTI Application received by the University after 21/08/2009 should have been replied to
within 30 days. All orders of statutory authorities must be complied with unless stay has been
obtained from the appropriate judicial forum.
In view of this, the reply dated 24/09/2009 by the Registrar stating that the University
is not a public authority is unacceptable and in violation of the Right to Information Act,
2005.
The Complaint is allowed.
The information will be provided to the Complainant before 30/11/2009.
The Registrar's action clearly amounts to denial of information without any reasons. The
Registrar is therefore, directed to appear before the Commission at the above-mentioned
address on 16/12/2009 at 12 p.m. along with his written submissions to show cause why
penalty should not be imposed on you under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act. If the information
has already been supplied to the complainant, furnish a copy of the same to the Commission
with your written submission.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
06 November 2009
Encl for Respondent: Copy of RTI Application dated 27/08/2009.