Central Information Commission
Prof. Rana Zaidi vs Department Of Higher Education on 11 May, 2023
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/DHEDU/A/2022/155003
Prof. Rana Zaidi .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Jamia Hamdard University, Mehrauli-Badarpur Road,
Near Batra Hospital, Block-D, Hamdard Nagar,
New Delhi-110062.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.06.2021
CPIO replied on : 03.02.2022
First appeal filed on : 26.07.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 03.02.2022
Second Appeal received at CIC : 24.11.2022
Date of Hearing : 10.05.2023
Date of Decision : 10.05.2023
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:Page 1 of 8 Page 2 of 8
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 26.07.2021.
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 03.02.2022, as under:Page 3 of 8 Page 4 of 8 Page 5 of 8 Page 6 of 8
• The FAA vide order dated 03.02.2022 held as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present: -
Appellant: Present Respondent: Mr. Mirza Rahil Beg (CPIO) Appellant has submitted that she has not received the information sought. She further submitted that she wants information on point no10 of the RTI Application. She further requested the commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the relevant information.
Upon the Commission instance, the CPIO has submitted that point -wise information has been furnished to the appellant. He further submitted that the information sought on point 10 by the appellant is related to the personal information of others and disclosure of the same is exempted under 8(1)(j) of the RTI act. He further affirmed that he would abide by the orders of the Commission.Page 7 of 8
Decision:
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. No legal infirmity is found in the response furnished by the Respondent. Thus, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy.
(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 8 of 8