Central Information Commission
Mohd Yusuf vs Indian Institute Of Information ... on 9 January, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/IIISP/A/2024/141069
Mohd. Yusuf .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
IIIT Senapati, RTI Cell,
Manipur, Mantripukhri,
Imphal, Manipur-795002. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.01.2026
Date of Decision : 08.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.04.2024
CPIO replied on : N.A.
First appeal filed on : 01.07.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : N.A.
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.12.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.04.2024 seeking the following information:
"...क्या JEE(MAIN.) Application no.220310214-816 के आवेदक मो० फैजान सााँ OSAA 2022 अनुसार अपने आबंटित संस्थान IIIT MANIPUR में B.TECH COMPUTER SCIENCE में नामांकन लिए हैं?Page 1 of 5
याद नह ं तो इनकी जमा की गयी फीस प्रोसेसींग फीस कािने के बाद अबतक ररफंड क्यों को नह ं की गयी है जबकक आवेदन सं-2203/0214816 के संवंध में जमा की गयी फीस IIIT MANIPUR को स्थानान्तररत कर द गयी है । उसके लिए उत्तरदाची कौन हैं? इसके ववरुद्ध अबतक कौन-सी सररवाई की गि है ?."
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.07.2024. The FAA's order is not available on record.
3. Aggrieved by the CPIO's inaction, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of requested information.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Mohd. Yusuf present through video conference. Respondent: Shri Collin Singh, Assistant Registrar-cum-CPIO present through video conference.
4. Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and contended that no reply has been given to him by CPIO till date. Hence, this Second Appeal before the Commission seeking intervention in the matter.
5. Written statement of the CPIO dated 06.01.2026 is taken on record. On being queried by the Bench regarding the status of reply of this RTI application, CPIO tendered his apology for no response within stipulated time as per the RTI Act, 2005 and explained the reason for the same to be lack of manpower and relevant Hindi translator. However, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Central Information Commission, a prompt reply was furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 06.01.2026.
6. Hearing Bench pointed out to the CPIO that the written statement filed by him carries procedural defects as it was nil dated not in proper form without any reference of subject issue with no name, designation and contact details of the replying Respondent in contravention of Office Memorandum No. 10/1/2013-IR dated 06.10.2015, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, 2005 which are as under :
Page 2 of 5"It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats. Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned."
7. The CPIO took note the aforesaid observations and volunteered to file a revised written statement and reply marked to the Appellant on conclusion of hearing.
8. The Commission is in receipt of a revised written statement dated 06.01.2026 from the CPIO (addressed to the Appellant), which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for the sake of reference:
"The information sought is readily available in the IIIT Senapati, Manipur website https://iiitmanipur.ac.in/pages/academic/admission.php under the Admission Cancellation & Fees Refund Policy of the institute. Accordingly, the following information from IIIT Senapati, Manipur is furnished as below. RTI Reply:
According to the available records, RTI applicant Md Faizan Khan, JEE (Main) Application No. 220310214816, accepted the seat allotted in B.Tech. Computer Science & Engineering at IIIT Senapati, Manipur under JoSAA-2022 counselling. However, the applicant failed to report to the institute according to the schedule set by the Joint Seat Allocation Authority (JoSAA) or at any time thereafter to secure his admission in the institute. The fee deposited by the concerned applicant to the JoSAA authority was transferred to the Page 3 of 5 account of IIIT Senapati, Manipur. The applicant's decision to forgo his admission in the institute, despite being registered with JoSAA, has not only prevented a deserving candidate from pursuing the B.Tech course but has also resulted in a financial loss for the institute. As per Clause 2.0 (1) of IIIT Senapati, Manipur, Admission Cancellation & Fees Refund Policy:
"If a student is allotted a seat in IIITSM and does not report to the institute as per the schedule prescribed by JoSAA / CSAB and his/her fee is received by the institute from the authority (JoSAA / CSAB), in such a case, the said fee shall be deemed to be forfeited and the student shall not be eligible for any refund." Copy of the document enclosed."
Hence, non-refund of fee in the concerned case is in accordance with the applicable policy and rules of the Institute. There is no accountability of any officer or institution in this regard as the entire process has been done as per laid down rules. The said information is being provided on the basis of available records of the institute."
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records observes that the core contention raised by the Appellant in this Second Appeal is non -receipt of reply from the CPIO till date. On the other hand, the CPIO tendered his apology for delayed reply and explained the reason for the same to be lack of manpower coupled with non-availability of Hindi translator in their office to answer RTI application as like that of the Appellant.
10. In this regard, the Commission on close scrutiny of records observed that the queries raised by the Appellant in the RTI application are apparently in the form of seeking clarification/explanation from the CPIO which do not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, but the fact remains that more than one year has elapsed since the filing of RTI application, yet no reply has been given to the Appellant till date of hearing. Moreover, no substantial explanation for such abject failure has been explained by the Respondent to the Appellant.
11. Further, the reason accorded by the Respondent Public Authority for not proactively maintaining the RTI database is found to be not appreciable.
Failure to dispose of the RTI Application inadvertently goes to reveal the casual approach in dealing with the matters under Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 4 of 5The Respondent is, therefore, cautioned to exercise due diligence and follow the timeline mandates to ensure that RTI Application could not be left unanswered for unjustifiable reasons.
12. Nonetheless, the reply furnished by the CPIO now vide letter dated 06.01.2026 is found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. However, in the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005, the Respondent, Shri Collin Singh, Asst. Registrar/CPIO is directed to share a copy of his relied upon documents that is, latest written submission along with enclosures, free of cost with the Appellant within two days from the date of receipt of this order. A proof of service to this effect be filed before the Commission, thereafter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi (सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri Mohd Yusuf Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)