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

Dr. Fazal Ul Haque vs University Of Delhi on 7 October, 2009

                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                     Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
                       Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                               Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                        Decision No. CIC /SG/C/2009/001351/5070
                                                           Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2008/001351

Complainant                                   :          Dr. Fazal Ul Haque
                                                         2163, Rodgaran, Lal Kuan,
                                                         Delhi-110006

Respondent                                     :         Public Information Officer
                                                         Deputy Registrar,
                                                         University of Delhi,
                                                         Main Campus, Delhi-110007

Facts arising from the Complaint:

Mr. Fazal Ul Haque had filed a RTI application with the PIO- Asstt. Registrar(Medical), Faculty of Medicine, University of Delhi, Delhi-110009 on 07/08/2009 asking for certain information. The PIO- Deputy Registrar, University of Delhi has returned back the Application and the Indian Postal Order to the complainant.

The IPO and the Application was returned with a letter dated 17/08/2009 by the PIO stating that the Complainant had filed the IPO in the name of University of Delhi and not in the name of Registrar, University of Delhi. Aggrieved by the refusal of the PIO the Complainant has filed a complaint before the Commission on 05/10/2009.

Decision:

Complaint Dismissed.
The Commission sees no merit in the complaint. The PIO has rightly retuned the IPO since it was addressed to University of Delhi and not to the Accounts Officer as mandated by Rule 3 of Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005. Rule 3 very clearly provides that:
"A request for obtaining information under subsection (1) of Section 6 shall be accompanied by an application fee of Rs. 10/-by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts officer of the public authority".

Therefore, the Commission sees no justification to interfere with the order of the PIO returning the IPO of the complainant.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 07 October 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RA)