Central Information Commission
Raj Sidapara vs Council Of Architecture on 30 March, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/COARC/A/2025/605963
Raj Sidapara .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE INDIA,
RTI CELL, HABITAT CENTER,
CORE 6A, 1ST FLOOR, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.03.2026
Date of Decision : 11.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.10.2024
CPIO replied on : 19.11.2024
First appeal filed on : 28.11.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.12.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 03.02.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.10.2024 seeking the following information:
"1. Status of Grievance with CoA:
Kindly provide the current status of my grievance filed with the Council of Architecture.
Has any correspondence or action been taken by the institution in response to the communication from Mr. Raj Kumar Oberoi or the CoA?Page 1 of 8
Please provide copies of any communication between Indubhai Parekh School of Architecture and the CoA regarding this matter, including any reports or responses sent to the CoA concerning my grievance.
2. Internal Assessment Process and Proof of Fairness: I request detailed records of the internal assessment process for my 6th semester and previous semesters. This should include:
o The criteria and method used to allot internal marks. o Documents proving fair and unbiased internal assessments, including any moderation or review process undertaken by the institution to ensure impartiality.
I request copies of any internal assessments, assignments, or projects that were used to allocate marks in my case, along with feedback or justification for the marks awarded.
3. External Evaluation Process and Answer Sheets: Please provide detailed information regarding the external assessment of my exams. Specifically:
o Where were the external answer sheets evaluated? o By whom were they checked, and how was the allocation of marks determined?
o Provide documents or records showing the process of external evaluation, including any moderation or standardization of marks.
o I also request copies of my external exam answer sheets, along with any comments or evaluation feedback provided by the external examiner.
4. Details of the Faculty Involved in Grading:
Please provide the names and qualifications of the faculty members involved in my internal assessments and grading during the 6th semester and previous semesters.
Were any external reviewers or moderators involved in the evaluation process to ensure fairness? If yes, please provide their details and the role they played in the assessment process.
5. Evaluation Guidelines:Page 2 of 8
Please provide a copy of the institution's guidelines or policies regarding the evaluation and grading of students, both for internal and external assessments.
Are there any formal review processes in place to address discrepancies in grading? If yes, please provide information on how these reviews are conducted and whether my case was subjected to such a review.
6. Fairness and Transparency in Assessment:
What steps does the institution take to ensure that the grading and evaluation process remains fair, transparent, and free from bias or favoritism?
Please provide records of any audits or evaluations conducted by the institution or external bodies to ensure the fairness and integrity of the grading system."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.11.2024 stating as under:
"This refers to your online RTI application no. COARC/R/E/24/00052 dated 24.10.2024 seeking information under the RTI Act. In this regard, at the outset, I have to inform you that in your RTI Application you have sought information related to Indubhai Parekh School of Architecture, Rajkot and not any information/ document maintained/available with this office.
Further, it is also noticed that vide letter dated 24.10.2024(as attached with your online RTI Application) you have also sought similar information under RTI from the PIO, Indubhai Parekh School of Architecture.
Pertinent to the matter, I have to inform you that the Council vide letter dated 26th September, 2024 (copy attached herewith) addressed to the Principal, Vyavasay Vidya Pratishthans Indubhai Parekh School of Architecture, Rajkot, Gujarat sought relevant information about the issue raised by you.
The institution has submitted the response to the Council vide email dated 27th September, 2024. A copy of the same is enclosed herewith.Page 3 of 8
The Council wrote another letter dated 14.11.2024 to the Principal, Vyavasay Vidya Prastishithans Indubhai Parekh School of architecture to provide the relevant information.
Further, you may approach the concerned University (Saurashtra University, Rajkot) for redressal of your grievances, if you may so desire."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.11.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 09.12.2024, stating as under-
"In this regard, I have to inform you that the Public Information Officer, Council of Architecture has already provided you all the relevant information as available with this office vide letter no.CA/28/2024/RTI/Appln/1286 dated 19.11.2024.
Further, the Council vide letter dated 14.11.2024 addressed to the Principal, Vyavasay Vidya Pratishthans Indubhai Parekh School of Architecture, Rajkot, requested that the institution has not submitted the reply/factual information in response to Council vide letter dated 26.09.2024. The institution has again submitted the reply vide email dated 20.11.2024. The Council has provided you the same vide letter no.CA/28/2024/RTI/Appln/1286 dated 21.11.2024.
You may please note that under the RTI Act, 2005, the Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005 can only supply the 'material' in the form as held and available with the public authority. The Public Authority is not supposed to create any information that is not a part of the record. As your grievance is related to a private institution, you may take up the same with the concerned Affiliating University."
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Shri Raj Sidapara present through video conference. Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar, Dy. Registrar along with Shri Murari Lal, Suptd. Present in person.
5. Written statement filed by the Appellant and Respondent are taken on record.
Page 4 of 86. Appellant stated that there is a malpractice and lack of transparency adopted by the Indubhai Parekh School of Architecture in conducting internal assessment of the student. Appellant claimed that being one of the affected student he filed grievance and also Court Case before the Court of Law. Through instant RTI application, he sought action taken report and other related information concerning his grievance from the Council of Architecture, however, he was not satisfied with the response from the CPIO.
7. CPIO reiterated the contents of his written statement filed before the Commission in Second Appeal dated 25.02.2026 wherein he ,interalia, pleaded as under -
"In order to better appreciate the role and functions of the Council by the Hon'ble Commission and the information maintained/ required to be maintained by Council, I would like to summarise the role and functions of Council under the Architects Act, 1972 as under:
i) To register persons possessing recognized qualifications as architects to practice the profession of an architect in the country and maintain a Register of Architects on all India basis under Section 23 of the Architects Act, 1972.
ii) To publish a Register of Architects which contains names, address and other particulars of the architects.
iii) To recommend the recognition of Indian as well as Foreign Architectural Qualifications under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act to the Central Government.
The Council is also empowered to enter into reciprocal arrangements with foreign authorities of recognition of architectural qualifications.
iv) Prescription and Assessment of the standards of architectural education and training of students and faculty members within the country in terms of Section 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Act including fixing intake, eligibility criteria, courses and periods of study of architectural institutions, qualification of faculty members and other infrastructure facilities, etc.
v) Prescription of code of conduct and ethics for Architects in terms of Section 22. Receiving complaints against Architects for violation of code and hold enquiries into misconduct of registered architects and taking suitable action against them.
vi) Filing complaints before Magistrate for violation of the Act. In terms Section 21 and 45 of the Act, Council has prescribed Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations, 2020 for regulating standards of Architectural Education in India. These Regulations inter ala provide for duration of architecture course, admission to the Architecture Degree course, Intake and Migration, courses and periods of studies. professional examination, standards of proficiency and conditions of Page 5 of 8 admissions, qualifications of examiners, standards of staff equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for architecture education Regulation 3(2) of these Regulations reads as under:
(2) The curriculum structure of the Architecture course shall follow the guidelines as outlined in Appendix-A under Choice Based Credit System. However, the modes of periodic assessment, end semester and viva voce examinations, weightages and grading system are left to the discretion of the University or institution"
With regard to the Second Appeal filed by the Appellant, it is respectfully submitted that the Appellant (Applicant) Mr. Raj Sidapara filed and an RTI Application dated 24 October, 2024, online, seeking certain information from the Council of Architecture regarding grading system and evaluation practices in Indubhai Parekh School of Architecture, Rajkot. He also requested documents related to internal and external valuation process including comparative analyses of anonymized students answer sheets to ensure fairness in marking. The Appellant also encicsed therewith a copy of RTI application made by him to the indu bhai Parekh school of Architecture, Rajkot In response, the PIO, Council of Architecture, provided the information as under
1. The information sought by the applicant is related to Indubhai Parekh School of Architecture Rajkot and not any information /documents maintained/ available with the office of the Council of Architecture.
2. The Applicant has also sought similar/related information under RTI from PIO, Indubhai Parekh School of Architecture, Rajkot
3. The Council provided the applicant copies of the communication sent by Council to the Indubhai Parekh School of Architecture and the response received from the concerned institution
4. The Council also informed the Applicant that a letter dated 14.11.2024 has been sent to the Principal of Indubhai Parekh School of Architecture to provide the relevant information.
5. The Council also informed the applicant to approach the Saurashtra University Rajkot for redressal of his grievance, if he may desire
6. The Council vide letter dated 21.11.2024 sent the further information received from the institution to the Applicant.
The Appellant (applicant) filed First Appeal dated 28.11.2024 before the Registrar, Council of Architecture who is First Appellate Authority of Councill under the RTI Act.
It is respectfully pointed out that in his First Appeal the Appellant (applicant) has added additional request/information which was not there in his application. The First Appellate Authority vide letter dated 9th December, 2024 considered the First Appeal and decided the First Appeal as under:Page 6 of 8
"The Council has already provided the information available with it and a public Authority is not supposed to create any information that is not a part of the record. As your grievance is related to a private institution, you may take up the same with concerned affiliating University."
Copy of the First Appeal and the decision of the First Appellate Authority dated 28.11.2024 is enclosed herewith as Appendix-C, for kind perusal of Hon'ble Commission.
Further, it is relevant to bring to the notice of the Hon'ble Commission that the Appellant has also approached Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in R/special Civil Application No. 4651 OF 2025 and R/special Civil Application No. 9130 of 2025 and the matter is still sub-judice before Hon'ble High Court. Copies of the same are enclosed herewith as Appendix-D for kind perusal of Hon'ble Commission. In view of the above, the Hon'ble Commission is requested to dismiss the Second Appeal of Appellant as the information available with the Council has already been shared with the Appellant and a Public Authority is not required to create information for an applicant and that the Appellant has approached Hon'ble Hight Court of Gujarat for redressal of his grievances against the concerned institution/University."
8. CPIO while concluding his arguments stated that reply along with permissible information as is held in their office has been provided to the Appellant. CPIO added that Appellant has also filed Court Case on the same subject before Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat which is sub-judice and where Respondent Public Authority is also impleaded in the array of parties.
Decision:
9. Heard the parties appeared.
10. After the perusal of the matter placed on record, the Commission observes that, it was suitably replied to the Appellant now as far as RTI Application in question is concerned vide written statement before the Commission of CPIO in the Second Appeal served on the Appellant, which is in line with the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the Appellant failed to substantiate the ground of dissatisfaction vis-à-vis reply of the CPIO's as such. Nonetheless, the written statement filed by the CPIO is comprehensive and self-explanatory which adequately addresses the queries raised by the Appellant in terms of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, since the issue raised by the Appellant is already pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, it is Page 7 of 8 better recourse for the Appellant to wait for the final verdict of the Court in the interest of justice.
11. In the light of the above, no relief can be granted in the matter.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस ािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Raj Sidapara Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)