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 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Naresh Kumar vs University Grants Commission on 8 June, 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/UGCOM/A/2018/619090/00833
                                          File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/619090

In the matter of:
Naresh Kumar
                                                              ...Appellant
                                      VS
Central Public Information Officer
University Grants Commission (UGC),
Bahadur Shah Zafar, Marg
New Delhi - 110 002

                                                             ... Respondent
RTI application filed on          :   18/02/2018
CPIO replied on                   :   Not On Record
First appeal filed on             :   20/03/2018
First Appellate Authority order   :   Not On Record
Second Appeal dated               :   07/05/2018
Date of Hearing                   :   06/06/2019
Date of Decision                  :   06/06/2019


The following were present:
Appellant: Not present

Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Assistant & Representative of CPIO. Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to Dr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Director, SRM Institute of Science & Technology, Modinagar, UP:
A. About Ph.D. Qualification-
1
1. On which date, degree of Ph.D. was awarded Dr. Pandey. From which university, he did Ph.D.
2. What was his subject of Ph.D.
3. What was his tenure of Ph.D.
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 was not present to plead his case.
The respondent submitted that they had transferred the RTI application u/s 6(3) to the SRM Institute of Science & Technology as the subject matter pertained to them. He further submitted that no reply has been received from the SRM University, it being a private institute and hence are not covered u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act. He relied on the order passed by CIC in File No CIC/UGCOM/A/2017/607027 wherein it was held that "Given the above facts and circumstances and the legal arguments canvassed by the learned Senior Advocate, it would have to be accepted that the petitioner is a "Deemed to be University' and recognized as such under the UGC Act and it is not established under the Act unlike a University, which is generally established under a statute either under a Central Government Act or State Government Act and therefore it could not be confused with any other University which may be so established. It is neither controlled or financed by the State Government and it is certainly a private institution with its own management and control and therefore, the same cannot be brought under the purview of the definition of a "public authority" as contained under the RTI Act. Hence, it would not be tenable for the respondents to proceed as if the petitioner came under the definition of "public authority" in having issued directions in the impugned order."
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that it has been earlier been held by a coordinate bench in its order in File No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001601 dated 11.08.2016 in the case of Shri Anjan Basak, Wardha (Maharashtra) vs. 2 File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/619090 CPIO, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha (Maharashtra) that SRM University by no means could be construed as a Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005 since it was a private unaided institution. However, the fact remains that no final and categorical reply has been provided to the appellant by the CPIO, UGC.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission is not in a position to provide any relief to the appellant. However, the CPIO is directed to provide a categorical final reply to the appellant based on the facts mentioned above within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.

The CPIO, UGC is advised to be careful in future while invoking Sec 6(3) or Sec 5(4) of the RTI Act. He/she may further note that while disposing RTI applications, information as available on record with UGC should be given or a categorical reply specifying the inability to provide the information.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.


                                             Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
                                    Information Commissioner (सच
                                                               ू ना आयु 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