Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Dharmendera Kumar Meena vs Motilal Nehru National Institute Of ... on 11 November, 2019

Author: Vanaja N Sarna

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                          क य सच  ु ना आयोग
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                            बाबा गंगनाथ माग
                           Baba Gangnath Marg
                       मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
                       Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                              Decision no.: CIC/MNITA/A/2018/621414/02110
                                          File no.: CIC/MNITA/A/2018/621414

In the matter of:
Dharmendera Kumar Meena
                                                             ... Appellant
                                      VS
Central Public Information Officer
Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology (MNNIT)
Allahabad - 211 004
                                                          ... Respondent
RTI application filed on          :   30/01/2018
CPIO replied on                   :   07/03/2018
First appeal filed on             :   19/03/2018

First Appellate Authority order : 23/03/2018 Second Appeal dated : 24/05/2018 Date of Hearing : 08/11/2019 Date of Decision : 08/11/2019 The following were present:

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Dr. Shivesh Sharma, Professor of Biotechnology & CPIO, present over VC.

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:
1. How many Ph. D and M. Tech students got ACD (Academically Deficient) in any semester in M.N.N.I.T Allahabad from 2010(Even) to 2017(Odd). Certified copy of their names with registration number and programme he/she opted.
1
2. How many Ph. D and M. Tech students did not got their Institute stipends due to ACD from 2010(Even) to 2017(Odd). Certified copy of their names with registration number and programme he/she opted.
3. How many Ph. D and M. Tech students have taken subject course of Dr. Ramaji Dwevedi including Geo-informatics Lab which he taught since 2010(Even) to 2017(Odd). Certified copy of their names with registration number, category, with their grade.
4. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that the desired information on points no 1 & 2 was not provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that in compliance with the FAA's order, on points no. 3& 4, complete information was provided to the appellant. With regard to points no. 1 & 2, he stated that he was given an adequate opportunity vide their letter dated 18.04.2018 to inspect the relevant documents as the information sought by the appellant was voluminous and was not readily available in the format as was desired by him.
On a query by the Commission to the appellant as to whether he has availed the offer of inspection or not, the appellant submitted that since he wanted the information in the form of hard copies, he had not availed the offer. He further submitted that even now he is interested in getting the desired information.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and considering the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the appellant had sought such records which are voluminous and not in a compiled form. However, an alternative had been provided to the appellant by way of providing inspection of the relevant documents where the CPIO had stated that the desired information is available. In such an event, the Commission cannot provide any further relief other than directing the CPIO to provide inspection of the relevant documents 2 File no.: CIC/MNITA/A/2018/621414 to the appellant once again since the appellant still wants the desired information.
Decision:
In view of the foregoing, the CPIO is directed to offer inspection of the relevant available records to the appellant at a mutually convenient date and time, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appellant is directed to avail the said offer within a period of 01 month from the date of receipt of the letter of inspection from the respondent authority, failing which no further opportunity will be provided to him. The CPIO is also directed to provide the copy of the first 15 pages after inspection, if so required, free of cost to the appellant and thereafter relevant photocopying charges should be paid by the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3