Central Information Commission
Ajay Kumar Shukla vs Department Of Higher Education on 28 August, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/DHEDU/C/2023/643778
Ajay Kumar Shukla ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Department of Higher
Education, New Delhi ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 20.06.2023 FA : 28.07.2023 Complaint : Nil
CPIO : 07.08.2023 FAO : 11.08.2023 Hearing : 20.08.2024
Date of Decision: 27.08.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Kindly provide the date and details of approval and assent of visitor of the NITs (Honorable President of India) regarding Ministry of Education Letter F. No. 35-
5/2017-TS. III dated 27/10/2020 along with official noting.
Page 1 of 4(ii) Also provide the date and details of submission of the aforesaid letter to Ministry of Law & Justice and their comments (if any).
(iii) Kindly provide the date, details of approval and assent of the Visitor (Honorable President of India) regarding ministry letter dated 13.09.2017, 17.11.2017, 30.11.2017, 04.12.2017, 31.01.2018, 20.04.2018 and 16.04.2019.
(iv) Also provide the date and details of submission of the aforesaid letters (point no. 3) to Ministry of Law & Justice and comments received from them (if any).
(v) Kindly provide the copy of draft forwarded/supplied to NITs, IIEST-Shibpur and NIT-Andhra Pradesh from the Ministry of Education for publication in Gazette along with copy of email /covering letter or instruction (if any).
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Point (i) to (v) - The process of notifying the amendment in the Statutes as per approval of the Hon'ble Visitor is still underway. The details may be shared once the amendments in Statutes are notified by all NITs. However, a copy of the communication dated 26th May 2023 vide which the approved notifications were sent to NITs is attached for ready reference. The notification sent to SVNIT-Surat is attached, which is identical to the notification of other NITs. The delay in furnishing reply is unintentional and same is regretted."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 28.07.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 11.08.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated nil.
5. The Complainant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Shri Vikas Tripathi, CPIO and Under Secretary, attended the hearing in- person.
Page 2 of 46. The Complainant inter alia submitted that the respondent had given an interim reply on 07.08.2023 that the approval was under process. Therefore, he requested the CPIO to provide him the latest status.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the erstwhile CPIO had provided him the information, as per status available with him during the material time. Therefore, there was no lapse at the end of the then CPIO. However, the approval with respect to the file Ministry of Education Letter F. No. 35-5/2017-TS. III dated 27/10/2020 had been completed and they were willing to offer an inspection to the complainant, since the file consisted approximately 600 pages.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate reply was given by the erstwhile CPIO during the material time, as per the status available under their custody. During the hearing, the respondent gave an oral undertaking before the Commission that they are willing to offer an inspection to the complainant on a convenient date to him, and shall intimate him the details at the earliest, considering the voluminous nature of the information (file consisting almost 600 pages). That being so, there appears to be no impropriety with the decision of the respondent and no action against the CPIO is warranted in the matter. Accordingly, the complaint is closed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 27.08.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड))
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 3 of 4
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO (Under RTI Act, 2005)
Department of Higher Education,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001
2. Ajay Kumar Shukla
Page 4 of 4
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)