Central Information Commission
Suman Srivastava vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 28 October, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/CC/A/2014/000140-SA
Suman Srivastava v. Insgtitute of Management Technology
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI/PIO: 3-5-12/5-12-2013 1st Appeal: 2nd Appeal: 21-1-2014
Disposed of Hearing: 28.10.2016 Decided on: 28.10.2016
Parties Present:
1. Appellant: Represented by her father, Mr. Dr.Ajay Srivastava
Public authority: Present
FACTS:
2. The appellant is asking information about admission done in PGDBM in 2011-12, like seats allotted in first year, total number of admission done before and after 2011, etc. The CPIO stated that IMP Nagpur is autonomous private body accordingly information was not given. The appellant approached the Commission.
Decision:
3. The professor representing the IMT initially refused to give information claiming that their institution was not a public authority, but a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 was running that institution. The Commission pointed out to him that under section 2(f) of RTI Act read with section 19 of the Societies Registration 1860 is bound to give information. Meanwhile, the representative of appellant appeared from Allahabad and stated that her son discontinued the course, within one month of admission due to illness, but he was not refunded the course fees amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-. Then the representative of IMT started giving information, and stated that the Page 1 appellant was refunded Rs.54,250/- on 11-8-2014. According to AICTE rules, if a student cancels his admission within one month from the registration, the student will get refund of course fee after deducting Rs.1,000/-. According to him, in this case the appellant cancelled his admission beyond one month and he was refunded accordingly.
4. The Commission holds that as the respondent is registered under the Societies Registration Act, they are bound to give information to any person, under its section 19. According to section 2(f) of RTI Act, the respondent is under an obligation to provide the information, in capacity of Society under the Societies Registration Act.
5. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide copies of relevant documents relating to refund of fees to Mr. Sarat Srivastava, to the appellant and to the Commission within 20 days from today.
6. The Commission also directs the AICTE to find out whether Mr. Sarat Srivastava, son of the appellant, was refunded according to their rules or not and inform the same to the appellant and the Commission, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The Commission also directs the appellant to provide a copy of the second appeal to the respondent authority within ten days from today. Disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Dinesh Kumar) Deputy Registrar Page 2 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, RTI Cell, Institute of Management Technology, 35Km Milestone, Katol Road, Nagpur-441502
2. Ms Suman Srivastava 23/47/163-D, Shiv Nagar Allalipur, Allahabad-211006
3. The CPIO under RTI, RTI Cell, Govt of India All India Council for Technical Education, Chandralok Building, Jan path New Delhi-110001.
Page 3