Central Information Commission
Ajit Kumar vs University Grants Commission on 22 September, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सच
ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2019/106608
In the matter of:
Ajit Kumar
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
University Grants Commission (UGC),
Bahadur Shah, Zafar Marg, New Delhi -110002
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 16/10/2018 CPIO replied on : 06/11/2018 First appeal filed on : 05/12/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 07/01/2019 Second Appeal dated : 07/02/2019 Date of Hearing : 21/09/2020 Date of Decision : 21/09/2020 The following were present:
Appellant : Present over phone Respondent: Smt. Suresh Rani, Under Secretary (HRP) and CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The Appellant has worked with Principal Investigator (PI), Prof. Rajpal Singh, Commerce Department, Maharishi Dayanand Vishwavidyalaya as a Project Fellow in a Major Research Project (MRP) having file No. 5-287/2010 of UGC. In this context, the appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the certified copy of the details about the instalments of amount which have been released by UGC to the Maharishi Dayanand Vishwavidyalaya in respect of the above project.1
2. Provide the certified copy of relevant page of the Receipt Register showing date of receipt of report submitted by PI to to U.G.C.
3. Provide the name, designation, address, phone number of the official of UGC to whom the report has been submitted by PI.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided incomplete and irrelevant information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his appeal submitted that the reply given to him vide letter dated 12.12.2019 is incomplete and delayed too. He requested for complete information on all the points .
The CPIO submitted that an apt point-wise reply was given vide letter dated 06.11.2018 which was well in time.
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply in respect of points 2(i)(ii)(iii) and (vi) of the RTI application. The CPIO could not explain the points raised by the appellant.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, the copy of the reply dated 12.12.2019 could not be found. However, it was noted that a point-wise reply was given on 06.11.2018. It was also noted that the same subject matter was dealt with by an earlier bench of the Commission on 15.12.2017 in case no.
CIC/SA/A/2016/001720/MP. However, as points no. 2(i)(ii)(iii) and (vi) were not appropriately replied to a revised reply should be given to the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply in respect of the above mentioned points, and in case the same are available with any other section, the CPIO shall take assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act, and obtain the information and provide a reply within 10 days from the date of issue of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) 2 Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date 3