Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mr.Vipin Gupta vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 22 October, 2013

                      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                Room No.-307, 2nd Floor, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan
                       Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
                                 Website : cic.gov.in
                         Telephone No.: +91-11-26105682


                          File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000533


Appellant:                                               Shri Vipin Gupta, Delhi
Public Authority:                                        MHRD, Deptt. of Higher
                                                         Education, New Delhi
Date of Hearing:                                         22.10.2013
Date of decision:                                        22.10.2013



Heard today, dated 22.10.2013.

Appellant is present.

The Public Authority is represented by Shri Sandeep Jain, CPIO, Under Secretary,
MHRD and Ms Rina Sonowal Kouli, Director, ICR, Dept of higher Education/AA.

FACTS

Vide RTI dt 7.9.12, appellant had sought information on two points relating to EIILM University, Sikkim.

2. CPIO MHRD vide letter dt 10.10.12, informed the appellant that no such information is available in the ICR division and transferred the RTI to CPIO (U2 Section), and CPIO (UGC) of HE Bureau. Subsequently, CPIO MHRD vide letter dt 23.10.12, informed the appellant that no information was available with them.

3. An appeal was filed on 15.11.12.

4. AA/Dy Secretary, UGC vide order dt 4.2.13, informed appellant that as this was a private University, the appellant should prefer his appeal to Director, ICR, and disposed of the appeal.

5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. CPIO clarified that private Universities are given recognition by the concerned States in which the University is located and not by the MHRD. As such the information sought by the appellant is not available with the MHRD.

DECISION

6. The Commission would like to observe that the manner in which the RTI has been handled by the then CPIO, ICR Division, leaves much to be desired. When the ICR deals with private Universities, the rationale of transferring the RTI to CPIOs U2 Section and UGC Section does not make sense. A clear response should have been provided to the appellant there and then, as has been clarified before the 1 Commission, now. In the light of the submissions made by the CPIO ICR Division, MHRD, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy forwarded to:

The Under Secretary & CPIO M/o HRD D/o Higher Education Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 The Deputy Secretary & FAA M/o HRD D/o Higher Education Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 Shri Vipin Gupta Shri Ram Memorial Trust 232, Pooth Khurd, Delhi-110039 (Raghubir Singh) Deputy Registrar .10.2013 2