Central Information Commission
Ajay Panthri vs University Grants Commission on 23 June, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UGCOM/A/2019/654378
Ajay Panthri ....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1.CPIO,
University Grants Commission,
RTI Cell, 35 Firoz Shah Road,
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
2.CPIO
Indira Gandhi National Open
University, RTI Cell, Maidan
Garhi, New Delhi - 110068. .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 21/06/2021
Date of Decision : 21/06/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 31/07/2019
1
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 02/09/2019
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18/10/2019
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 31.07.2019 seeking following information;
1. "Copy of undertaking submitted by Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar with reference to letter no.F.No. DEC/Recog/2009/3298 dated 17.09.09 for extension of recognition accorded vide letter no. F. No. DEC/PTU/Pb/07/5451 dated 29.08.2007 for another period of one year.
2. Copy of approval according recognition to Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar for the year 2008-09 by the Competent Authority of DEC.
3. Any communication conveying recognition to Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar for the year 2008-09 by DEC."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.09.2019. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio-conference.
Respondent 1: Smita Bidani, Education Officer (DEB) & PIO present through audio-conference.
Respondent 2 : Not present.
The Appellant stated that he has received the desired information from the PTU in response to a similar RTI Application.2
Respondent 1 submitted that a point wise reply along with desired information was provided to the Appellant as is evinced from letter dated 11.06.2020 and also by FAA's order dated 03.11.2020.
Upon a query from the Commission regarding the delay , the Respondent 1 at the outset tendered her unconditional regret and submitted that she was not the designated PIO at the time when the reply was furnished to the Appellant. She further explained that delay so caused by the then PIO was perhaps due to multiple transfer of the RTI application back and forth among the various CPIOs within UGC.
Decision:
The Commission based upon a perusal of facts on record finds no scope of relief in the matter with respect to the information as the reply given by PIO, UGC adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission takes grave exception to the fact that no reply was provided to the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of RTI Act by any of the CPIO/PIO, UGC and also no substantial explanation in this regard was forthcoming from the Respondent 1 during the hearing, shows the conduct of UGC authorities in dealing with the RTI matter. The said omission of Respondent 1 amounts to causing unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information and is a gross violation of the provisions of RTI Act.
Therefore, the Respondent 1 (present PIO, UGC) is directed to file their written submission to show - cause as to why no action should be initiated against her under Section 20 of the RTI Act. If any other person is responsible for such delay then the present PIO,UGC is directed to file his/her written submission as well, along with her written submission and supporting documents. The said written submission should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
It is also pertinent to note that since the RTI Application has been addressed to UGC and also subject matter comes under its domain, therefore the role of Respondent 2 is hereby dispensed with.3
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4