Central Information Commission
Ayush Sharma vs Indian Institute Of Technology (Iit), ... on 22 October, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/IITRK/A/2024/650893
Ayush Sharma ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Joint Registrar, Indian
Institute of Technology: ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Roorkee, Uttarakhand
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 25.08.2024 FA : 05.10.2024 SA : Nil
CPIO : 10.09.2024 FAO : 18.10.2024 Hearing : 14.10.2025
Date of Decision: 22.10.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
I Ayush Sharma was admitted for the course of Executive Post Graduate Certification in Cyber Security and Ethical Hacking on 3 Nov 23 through your training partner intellipaat. Kindly provide us following information.
1. iHub Divyasampark provide me complete details of my admission
(a) Course admission letter provided by divyasampark.
(b) Fees Structure
(c) This course is approved by DST iyes ?/no Page 1 of 5
(d) DST logo is available over certificate by Intellipaat over their website in NOV 23 YES/NO
(e) DST logo is available over website of Intellipat over their website in sept 2024
(f) Details of fees collected by Intellipaat with complete transaction details.
(g) Details of Loan provided by Intellipaat through J M FINANCIAL PRODUCT limited loan account number JM2311P114852
(h) Details of Amount refunded.
(i) Details of amount left with Intellipat with reason of not refunding this amount.
(j) details of GST submitted by Intellipaat
2. Under Section- 4(1) (c) Request to provide us MOU of IHUB and Intellipaat for Executive Post Graduate Certification in Cyber Security and Ethical Hacking for Nov 2023. (As not available on website)
3. certified copy of course fees of Executive Post Graduate Certification in Cyber Security and Ethical Hacking at that time of admission.
4. Share copy of letter of DST which permits you to run such courses with intellipaat under the DST and IITR for financial benefit edtech company under section Section- 4 (1) (b)
5. Kindly provide approving authority of this course of Executive Post Graduate Certification in Cyber Security and Ethical Hacking for year 2023, (Copy of letter) ... etc./ other related information
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1. (a) Information sought under point (a) has already been provided to you at the time of admission.Page 2 of 5
(b) Fees structure has already provided in brochure.
(c) Its approved by iHUB DivyaSampark.
(d) This question is redirected to intellipaat.
(e) This question is redirected to intellipaat.
(f) That question is redirected to Intellipaat.
(g) The information sought point no (g) is not clear.
(h) This question is not clear and specific.
(i) That question is redirected to Intellipaat.
(j) That question is redirected to Intellipaat.
2. This information is relating to commercial confidence, trade secrets thus barred under Section 8(1)(d).
3. That question is redirected to Intellipaat.
4. All the details sought under point 4 is available on https://nmicps.in/.
5. iHUB, as this course is managed by iHUB itself. Etc.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.10.2024 held as under: -
"I have perused your appeal along with the information already provided by PIO on 13.09.2024. You are informed that iHub is a Section 8 company and so an independent legal entity. Nevertheless, the information sought by you in this appeal was sent to them. The information provided by iHub now is as follows:
1. The admission letter was issued to the applicant Ayush Sharma by Intellipaat, and so iHub transferred the appeal for points 1(d) to 1(j) of the appeal, to Intellipaat.
2. The MoU between iHub and Intellipaat has been denied by iHub under RTI Section 8(1)(d).Page 3 of 5
3. iHub has further informed that the information on other points is available at the link https://nmicps.in/ which was already provided to the applicant to fetch the online information.
These points of information since related to another independent legal entity (Section 8 iHub), the information received is accordingly informed as above."
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant remained absent during hearing despite service of hearing notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Abhishek Kumar-PIO, IIT Roorkee attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information as available in the records and as permissible under provisions of the RTI Act had been duly provided to the appellant vide the PIO's reply. He further mentioned that written submission dated 08.10.2025 had been submitted before the Commission reiterating the above facts and a copy of the same had also been duly sent to the appellant.
The appellant has also submitted a written note which reveals that he is aggrieved by I HUB Divyasampark and Intellipaat and alleges them of ruining his career by giving false information regarding courses run by them. In this regard he seeks that IIT Roorkee should help him with information sought by him so that he is able to take necessary legal action against them.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the grievances of the appellant are directed against I HUB Divyasampark and Intellipaat as per his own written statement. The respondent - FAA has clarified that iHub is a Section 8 company and an independent legal entity while Intellipaat is an online learning platform which partners with iHub. In the given circumstances, the respondent IIT Roorkee is thus not likely to hold the information sought by the appellant. Hence response sent is in order and based on available records, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. In the absence of Page 4 of 5 the appellant, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no intervention is warranted in the instant appeal, under provisions of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the appeal at hand is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 22.10.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Joint Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology:
Roorkee, RTI Cell, Roorkee, Uttarakhand - 247667 2 Ayush Sharma Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)