Central Information Commission
Srikanth Sreedhar vs Department Of Higher Education on 6 June, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DHEDU/A/2023/622211
Srikanth Sreedhar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Department of Higher Education
New Delhi ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 10.04.2023 FA : 17.04.2023 SA : Nil.
CPIO : 17.04.2023 FAO : 04.05.2023 Hearing : 04.06.2024
Date of Decision: 06.06.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:
I want a copy of the Memorandum of Association of Regional Engineering College Surathkal, Karnataka despite dissolution of this society to create the NITK Memorandum of Association. I want the MoA of the Regional Engineering College Surathkal and not of NITK Surathkal.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.04.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 1 of 3"With regard to your RTI application, it is already informed to you that NITs (previously known as RECs) were taken over by the Central Government in May, 2003. Prior to enactment of the NITSER Act, 2007 the NITs were governed by the respective Memorandum of Association (MoA) and Rules framed thereunder, MoA of NITK Surthakal is available with you. No information is available with the CPIO(NITs)."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.04.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 04.05.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Pawan Kumar, Under Secretary, attended the hearing in-person.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that there was no other Memorandum of Association under their custody, apart from the MoA of NITK Surthakal and the same was already available at their website.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per material records available under their custody. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंिी रामललंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक/Date: 06.06.2024 Authenticated true copy Page 2 of 3 Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनगल एस एस निकारा (ररटायर्ग)) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Ministry Of Education, Department Of Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001
2. Srikanth Sreedhar Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)