Central Information Commission
Monika Aggarwal vs National Institute Of Fashion ... on 17 March, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: -CIC/NIFTY/A/2018/172801/03123
File no.: - CIC/NIFTY/A/2018/172801
In the matter of:
Monika Aggarwal
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT),
Establishment Department-II, Head Office Hauz Khas,
New Delhi - 110016
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 16/08/2018 CPIO replied on : 13/09/2018 First appeal filed on : 21/09/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 22/10/2018 Second Appeal dated : 10/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 12/03/2020 Date of Decision : 12/03/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Shri Rajiv Ranjan, Accounts Officer & CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Copy of the documents of the Institute
(a) Giving information of specific role and responsibility, terms and conditions, guidelines/instructions issued by NIFT, Head Office to its Campuses regarding hiring the services or appointment of Warden in Girl's Hostels;
(b) Guidelines/instructions issued by NIFT Head office to its Campuses for sanction of leave to the employees hired through placement agencies, and other related information as per point (c) & (d).
12. Copy of the order issued by the competent authority for visiting Bhubaneswar NIFT Campus by Senior Officials from NIFT Head Office on 08th and 09th February 2017 and a copy of the office note sheet with the noting by the concerned officials.
3. Copy of the complaints based on which order was issued by the competent authority for visiting Bhubaneswar NIFT Campus by Senior Officials from NIFT Head Office on 08th and 09th February 2017.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that she is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to her. She stated that the reply given by the CPIO does not contain the specific information sought by her as on point no.1, she is seeking particular information about the NIFT only and the CPIO has provided general information which is already available with her.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 13.09.2018.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties, it is noted that the appellant is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on all of the points raised in the RTI application. On point no. 1 & 2, the appellant submitted that the CPIO has provided a copy of the general statute followed by them, however, she wants information specific to NIFT and the guidelines and circulars issued by the NIFT itself. With regard to points no.3, 4 & 5, the CPIO submitted that since the matter was under consideration, no information could be provided to the appellant. The Commission opines that the reply given by the CPIO and the order of the FAA both were not commensurate with the issues raised by the appellant in her RTI application and the information sought by her. Under such circumstances, the CPIO is directed to re-examine each of the points raised in the RTI application and provide a revised reply to the appellant. With regard to points no. 3, 4 & 5, the CPIO should note that in case the matter is still under consideration and the CPIO is claiming any exemption under the RTI Act, a 2 File no.: - CIC/NIFTY/A/2018/172801 categorical reply should be given to the appellant while justifying the exemption and in case the matter has attained finality, the relevant information should be provided to the appellant subject to the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to consider the RTI application afresh and re-examine every point raised therein to provide the relevant and specific information to the appellant as per the discussions held during the hearing within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3