Central Information Commission
Arvind Meena vs University Of Delhi on 23 February, 2023
CIC/UODEL/A/2021/647241
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/UODEL/A/2021/647241
In the matter of:
Arvind Meena ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
University of Delhi,
North Campus, Delhi-110007
2. CPIO,
Netaji Subhas University of
Technology, Azad Hind Fauj
Marg, Sector-3, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110078
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 13.04.2021
CPIO replied on : 15.06.2021
First Appeal filed on : 04.06.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 02.07.2021
Second Appeal received on : 06.10.2021
Date of Hearing : 01.12.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Dr. Hitesh Meena, Representative of the Appellant participated
in the hearing in person
Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CPIO along with Shri. Hemchand
Pandey, Assistant Registrar from University of Delhi and Ms. Astha Singh,
PIO from Netaji Subhas University of Technology, participated in the
hearing in person
Page 1 of 9
CIC/UODEL/A/2021/647241
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 13.04.2021 seeking information on the following six points:
Shri Anand Kumar Soni, CPIO, University of Delhi, Delhi vide letter dated 15.06.2021, informed to the Appellant as under:Page 2 of 9
CIC/UODEL/A/2021/647241 Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.06.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 02.07.2021, enclosed a letter given by Joint Registrar & Appellate Authority, University of Delhi, Delhi dated 30.06.2021 wherein informed as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The representative of the Appellant stated that the Appellant is not satisfied with the reply furnished by the Respondent as no information with respect to the instant RTI Application has been furnished till date.Page 3 of 9
CIC/UODEL/A/2021/647241 The Respondent submitted that a categorical reply with respect to the instant RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant. However, due to prevailing restrictions in the time of COVID Pandemic relevant information could not be provided to the Appellant within the stipulated time frame. He further added that since some of the information pertain to Netaji Subhas University of Technology, the RTI Application has been transferred to them as it was earlier part of the University of Delhi by the name Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology which has now become an autonomous body.
The Respondent submitted that a reply has been furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 16.06.2021 and the contents of the same are as under:
The Respondent further submitted that for information on point 2 a reply has been furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 09.07.2021 wherein the requisite information has been denied under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act and the contents of the same are as under:Page 4 of 9
CIC/UODEL/A/2021/647241 As regard the rest of the points of the RTI Application a composite reply has been furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 05.07.2021 and the contents of the same are as under:
The representative of Appellant interjected that the information with respect to point 1, 4, 5 & 6 of the RTI Application could not be found on the website. The Commission orally directed the Respondent to furnish the copies of relevant extant provisions as sought vide point 1, 4, 5 & 6 of the RTI Application to the Appellant during hearing.
The representative of the Appellant further interjected that information with respect to point 3 of the RTI Application has still not been furnished, to which the Respondent (PIO-NSUT) submitted that the information with respect to point 3 of the RTI Application is regarding the complaint filed by the Appellant which is under investigation, therefore the requisite Page 5 of 9 CIC/UODEL/A/2021/647241 information cannot be furnished until the investigation is ongoing as furnishing the requisite information will vitiate the averred investigation. However, as and when the averred investigation gets concluded the requisite information will be provided to the Appellant.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CPIO, University of Delhi vide letter dated 28.11.2022, and the same has been marked to the Appellant wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:Page 6 of 9
CIC/UODEL/A/2021/647241 Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent has attended the instant RTI Application by furnishing requisite replies to the Appellant. However, there has been an inordinate delay in furnishing the same to the Appellant, for which the Respondent has provided adequate explanation and accordingly the delay occurred is hereby condoned. The Commission further observes that information with respect to point 2 of the RTI Application has been denied by the Respondent under section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act and the Commission upholds the same. Further, the Respondent has complied with the oral direction of the Commission by furnishing the requisite information with respect to points 1, 4, 5 & 6 of the RTI Application to the Appellant during hearing. As regards the information with respect to point 3 of the RTI Application, the Commission deems it fit to direct the Respondent (PIO-NSUT) in the light of the submissions made during hearing, to furnish the requisite information to the Appellant as and when the averred investigation attains finality. The present PIO-NSUT is further directed that while complying with the directions of the Commission, all the personal information/identifying particulars of any third parties should be adequately redacted/blackened out. The Commission further directs the present CPIO Page 7 of 9 CIC/UODEL/A/2021/647241 that no information shall be disclosed to the Appellant which is exempted from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 23.02.2023 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 8 of 9 CIC/UODEL/A/2021/647241 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) University of Delhi, North Campus, Delhi-110007
2. The Central Public Information Officer University of Delhi, North Campus, Delhi-110007
3. The Central Public Information Officer, Netaji Subhas University of Technology, Azad Hind Fauj Marg, Sector-3, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078
4. Mr. Arvind Meena Page 9 of 9