Central Information Commission
Mohammed Haroon vs University Grants Commission on 16 February, 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/2025/604663
CIC/UGCOM/A/2025/604653
Mohammed Haroon ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
.....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
RTI CELL, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR
MARG, NEW DELHI -110002 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.02.2026
Date of Decision : 12.02.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
The above-mentioned Complaint and Second Appeals have been clubbed
together for decision through common order as these are based on same RTI
application.
CIC/UGCOM/C/2025/604663
CIC/UGCOM/A/2025/604653
Relevant facts emerging from complaint/Second Appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.11.2024
CPIO replied on : 15.01.2025
First appeal filed on : 29.12.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 20.01.2025
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 26.01.2025
Page 1 of 5
Information sought:
1. The Complainant/Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.11.2024 seeking the following information:-
"1. Documents Submitted for Deemed University Status: ○ A complete list of all documents submi ed by Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), a Deemed University, to the University Grants Commission (UGC) for obtaining deemed university status. (Individually in PDF format) ○ Copies of the following specific documents: ■ Memorandum of Association (MoA) and Articles of Association (AoA) ■ Detailed Project Report (DPR) ■ Land ownership documents ■ Financial sustainability plan ■ Academic program proposals ■ Faculty qualifications and experience documents ■ Infrastructure and facilities details ■ No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the state government and other relevant authorities ■ Undertaking to comply with UGC regulations
2. Fee Notifications and Regulations:
○ Copies of all fee no fica ons and regula ons issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) regarding fee structures, fee waivers, and scholarships.
○ Copies of all fee no fica ons submi ed by SIMATS to the University Grants Commission (UGC) regarding additional fee payment for cultural fees, examination fees, convocation fees and additional workshop fees.
○ Any specific guidelines or circulars issued by the UGC regarding fee regulation for deemed universities.
○ Informa on on any fee regula on authori es or mechanisms in place to monitor and regulate fees charged by deemed universities."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant/Appellant on 15.01.2025 stating as under:-
"Information sought comes under section 8(e) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence information can not be provided."Page 2 of 5
3. Aggrieved by the decision of CPIO, the Complainant/Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.12.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 20.01.2025 stated that:-
"Shri Mo Haroon has filed an appeal dated 29.12.24 under the RTI Act 2005, which was received in this bureau on 29.12.24. in his appeal the appellant has stated that he is not satisfied with the earlier reply provided by UGC The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO have been perused. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collate information that is not a part of the record. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly..."
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Complainant/Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Complaint and Second Appeal. Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant/Appellant: Not present. Respondent: Shri Kamal Kishore, US/CPIO present in person.
5. Complainant/Appellant remained absent during hearing despite service.
6. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.
7. CPIO relied on his written statement and stated that information sought by the Appellant pertains to personal information of third-party Institution which are usually held by UGC in fiduciary capacity, therefore, it was initially denied to the Complainant/Appellant under Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Central Information Commission, the CPIO reviewed the contents of RTI application and furnished a revised point-wise reply on 11.02.2026 informing as under -
"1. Saveetha institute of Medical I and Technical Sciences was notified vide letter No. 9-3/2002-U.3 dated 18th March, 2005. Annexure- I
2. UGC has published guidelines for public self disclosure available at the UGC Website. -UGC has also sent a letter to all HEIs to follow the guidelines and make Page 3 of 5 avail. All the information on the website. Therefore, you are requested to visit their website for further information. Annexure - II.
2. UGC has issued a letter to all the HEIs regarding the Fee Refund Policy for Academic Session 2025-26, Annexure-III, which is attached for your ready reference- Moreover, all the Deemed to be Universities are governed by UGC Regulations, 2023. Annexure- IV."
8. CPIO stated that the reason for absence of Complainant/Appellant was probably due to receipt of desired information through the revised reply. Decision
9. Considering the submissions of the parties and facts of cases in hand the Commission observes that although the request for information was initially denied by then CPIO under Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the present CPIO made his best efforts by revisiting the contents of RTI application in question and furnished a revised reply to the Complainant/ Appellant vide letter dated 11.02.2026 along with relevant available information. The recent reply of the CPIO inviting attention of the Complainant/ Appellant towards the UGC guidelines which is in public domain along with copy of letters issued by UGS to all HEIs regarding fee refund policy, appears to be as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
10. Moreover, the Complainant/Appellant neither appeared during hearing to plead her case nor filed any written submission to controvert the version of CPIO after receiving the information sought.
11. Ongoing through the contents of revised reply of the CPIO, the Commission arrives at a conclusion that there is no mala fide denial of information by the CPIO or otherwise in the instant case which calls for any action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, Bench relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central 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 Page 4 of 5 ......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, intervention of the Commission is not warranted at this juncture in the matter.
The Complaint/Second Appeal are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लं गी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Mohammed Haroon Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)