Central Information Commission
Harish Parashar vs University Grants Commission on 5 March, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UGCOM/C/2025/618356
Harish Parashar ....िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
RTI CELL, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI -110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.03.2026
Date of Decision : 03.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 27.02.2025
CPIO replied on : 25.03.2025
First appeal filed on : 03.04.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 16.04.2025
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.04.2025
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.02.2025 seeking the following information:
"Subject: Right to Information Application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information regarding action taken on complaints sent to UGC against NIMT College of Law, Kotputli (a private college affiliated to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur) Sir/Madam, Page 1 of 7 This application is filed under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking specific information regarding the action taken by the University Grants Commission (UGC) on complaints received against NIMT College of Law, Kotputli (a private college affiliated to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur, Affiliation College Code: 79), and related student grievances.
Details of Complaints:
1. Complaint dated 14/11/2024: Submitted via speed post (tracking number ED454331063IN) dated 29/11/2024, addressed to the Chairperson, University Grants Commission. This complaint pertains to issues including, but not limited to, fee hikes, unjustified penalties, forgery of signatures, and non-compliance with UGC guidelines.
2. Follow-up Complaints dated 04/12/2024 & 03/01/2025: Submitted via speed post (tracking number ED454331077IN) and registered post (tracking number RD973415856IN), respectively, addressed to the same authority, adding further issues to the original complaint.
3. Complaint Registered in UGC Samadhan Portal: Submitted online through the UGC Samadhan portal on 03/01/2025 with ticket ID STU20251675249776542.
4. College and University Details:
University: Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur Private College: NIMT College of Law, Kotputli, Rajasthan (Affiliation College Code: 79) Information/Documents (certified) Requested under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005:
1. Action Taken on Complaint dated 14/11/2024 (Point 1): Complete authorized information and documents (date-wise) detailing the action taken by the UGC on the complaint dated 14/11/2024.
2. Action Taken on Follow-up Complaints dated 04/12/2024 & 03/01/2025 (Point 2):
Complete authorized information and documents (date-wise) detailing the action taken by the UGC on the follow-up complaints submitted.
3. Action Taken on Complaint filed on UGC Samadhan Portal (Point 3): Complete authorized information and documents (date-wise) detailing the action taken by the UGC on the complaint filed on the UGC Samadhan Portal with ticket ID STU20251675249776542 on 03/01/2025.
4. Documents to Confirm Adherence to UGC Guidelines (Point 4): Complete authorized information and documents regarding the confirmation of NIMT College of Law, Kotputli, to adhere to the guidelines of the UGC, specifically related to the Student Grievance Redressal Mechanism and the appointment of academic faculties.Page 2 of 7
5. Certified documents required for Standard Operating Procedure and Students Grievances redressal Forum:
SOP and students Grievances redressal Forum of University grand Commission with respect to Student grievances related to the academic institutions of India. See Attachment for detail."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 25.03.2025 stating as under:
"Reply :- This is to inform you that your complaint has already been forwarded to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur dated 18.03.2025 (copy attached). It is to inform you that RTI information related with Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur and it is to inform you that Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur a State Public University which is fall under the university jurisdiction. Therefore, the university will examine the complaint and any action taken by the university will be directly communicated to the you. Furthermore, it is to be noted that Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur is a state public university and falls under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. It is advisable to approach the concern university directly for obtaining the required information and for any necessary action.
Additionally, State Public Universities are governed by their respective State Government as per the Act, Statutes Ordinances, Rules and Regulation approved by the respective State Government. These universities also fall under the jurisdiction of the State Information Commission, which has been constituted under the Right to Information Act, 2005 through an official notification in the Gazette. As per Section 7 of the RTI Act, the headquarter of the State Information Commission shall be located at place designated by the State Govt. through a notification in the official Gazette.
You are also advised to approach the Students Grievance Redressal Committee and the Ombudeperson appointed by the university as per the provision of the UGC (Redressal of Grievance of Students) Regulations, 2023 Further, it is also to inform you that the Public Authority under Sections 2(f) & 2(j) of the RTI Act is required to furnish information which is available in his custody or as held by the Public Authority in any material form. It is not required to either interpret or draw conclusions from the material in its possession."Page 3 of 7
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 03.04.2025.The FAA vide its order dated 16.04.2025 held as under -
"With reference to the subject cited with ref No. (i) & (ii) under RTI Act, 2005, I am to inform you that the CPIO (SU), UGC has already replied the online RTI request No- UGCOM/R/E/25/01595/1 on 25.03.2025 (copy attached) and Grievances Id: STU20251675249776542 has been forwarded to the Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur, Rajasthan on 13.03.2025 and 07.04.2025 with a request to address this grievance and take necessary action. (copy attached).
Furthermore, it is to be noted that Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, is a State Public University and falls under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. It is advisable to approach the concerned university directly for obtaining the required information and for any necessary action.
Additionally, State Public Universities are governed by their respective State Governments as per the Acts, Statutes, Ordinances, Rules, and Regulations approved by the respective State Governments. These universities also fall under the jurisdiction of the State Information Commission, which has been constituted under the Right to Information Act, 2005, through an official notification in the Gazette. As per Section 7 of the RTI Act, the headquarters of the State Information Commission shall be located at a place designated by the State Government through a notification in the official Gazette.
You are also advised to approach the Students Grievance Redressal Committee and the Ombudsperson appointed by the university, as per the provisions of the UGC (Redressal of Grievance of Students) Regulations 2023.
Now, therefore, in the exercise of powers conferred under Section 19(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the appeal made by the appellant stands disposed of."
4. Aggrieved by the non-adjudication of First Appeal, Complainant is before the Commission with the instant Complaint on the ground that requisite information on point No. 4 of RTI application has not been provided to him by CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.Page 4 of 7
Respondent: Ms. Rachna Verma, US along with Ms. Poonam Sharma, SO/CPIO present in person.
5. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.
6. Complainant remained absent during hearing despite service.
7. CPIO relied on his written statement and stated elaborated reply has already been provided to the Complainant by FAA informing him that 'CPIO (SU), UGC has already replied the online RTI request No- UGCOM/R/E/25/01595/1 on 25.03.2025 (copy attached) and Grievances Id:
STU20251675249776542 has been forwarded to the Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur, Rajasthan on 13.03.2025 and 07.04.2025 with a request to address this grievance and take necessary action. (copy attached). Furthermore, it is to be noted that Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, is a State Public University and falls under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. It is advisable to approach the concerned university directly for obtaining the required information and for any necessary action. Additionally, State Public Universities are governed by their respective State Governments as per the Acts, Statutes, Ordinances, Rules, and Regulations approved by the respective State Governments. These universities also fall under the jurisdiction of the State Information Commission, which has been constituted under the Right to Information Act, 2005, through an official notification in the Gazette. As per Section 7 of the RTI Act, the headquarters of the State Information Commission shall be located at a place designated by the State Government through a notification in the official Gazette. You are also advised to approach the Students Grievance Redressal Committee and the Ombudsperson appointed by the university, as per the provisions of the UGC (Redressal of Grievance of Students) Regulations 2023."
8. CPIO pleaded that there is no denial of information from their side. Decision:
9. Heard the party, appeared.
10. Based on the facts stated by the CPIO in their reply that Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, is a State Public University and falls under the purview of the State, which is not covered under the jurisdiction of Central Information Commission and upon perusal of records, the Page 5 of 7 Commission noted that this is a Complaint filed under Section 18(2) the RTI Act, 2005 where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgment decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011: AIR 2012 SC 864 wherein it was held as under:-
"...Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19.
This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden..."
11. The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. On-going through the records, it is noted by the Commission that the CPIO has furnished timely response to the Complainant. In addition to it, further clarification tendered by the FAA while disposing the First Appeal of the Complainant is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
11. There is no mala fide denial of information or otherwise is found on the part of CPIO in the instant case which calls for any action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, Commission relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Page 6 of 7 Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 wherein it was held as under:
"....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
xxx ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
12. In the light of above the Commission finds no scope for intervention in the matter The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011-26767500 Date Shri Harish Parashar Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)