Central Information Commission
Dr. Abdul Rayees vs A.I.C.T.E., New Delhi on 3 July, 2008
Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No. 2739/IC(A)/2008
F. No. CIC/MA/C/2008/00246
Dated, the 3rd July, 2008
Name of the Appellant : Dr. Abdul Rayees
Name of the Public Authority : A.I.C.T.E., New Delhi.
Facts:
1. The complainant did not avail of the opportunity of personal hearing on 2/7/2008. The complaint is, therefore, examined on merit.
2. The complainant had sought for information vide his application dated 25.8.2007 regarding the recruitment rules and other details for the post of Workshop Superintendent in a Polytechnic (Diploma Level) of a Central University, namely Aligarh Muslim University, Banaras Hindu University, Jamia Millia Islamia and Pondicherry University. Since the information was not furnished to him, he filed his first appeal before the Appellate Authority on 3.10.2007. The Appellate Authority has also not responded.
3. The CPIO replied on 21.1.2008, after a lapse of 5 months, and assured him that the desired information would be sent to him in due course. Since then, the complainant has been expecting to receive the information, but in vain. He also wrote to the Chairman, AICTE on 31.1.2008, but of no avail. Hence, this complaint before the Commission.
1Decision:
4. The officials of the respondent, mainly the CPIO and Appellate Authority, have hardly paid due attention to the implementation of the provisions of the Act. This belies the expectations of the citizens from this apex institution.
5. The CPIO is held responsible for violation of section 7(1) of the Act, as he has not replied to the application for information dated 25/8/2007 till 21/01/2008. Clearly, he has neither replied nor furnished the information asked for within the stipulated period of 30 days. He is therefore directed to show cause as to why a penalty of maximum amount of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed on him u/s 20(1) of the Act. He should submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of issue of this decision and also appear for personal hearing on 30th July, 2008 at 12.00 noon.
6. In case the information asked for is held by an official, other than the CPIO, he should be identified by the CPIO and asked to appear in the hearing to explain the reasons for not providing the information. The CPIO should accordingly inform him and ask him to be present in the hearing.
7. The CPIO is also directed to furnish the information asked for by the complainant within 15 working days from the date of issue of this decision. A compliance report should also be submitted to the Commission at the earliest.
8. The Chairman, AICTE or his nominee should also explain, as to why a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) should not be awarded to the complainant for all kind of losses and detriment suffered by him in seeking the information which till date has not been furnished to him, even though the complainant had approached him vide his letter dated 3.10.2007 and 2 31.01.2008. The Chairman, AICTE or his nominee should also appear for a hearing in the matter on the date and time mentioned above. The complainant may also be present.
9. The complaint is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma) Assistant Registrar Name and address of parties:
1. Dr. Abdul Rayees, 19, MIG Flat, ADA Colony, Sir Syed Nagar, Aligarh-
202002 ( U.P).
2. Dr Nirendra Dev, Dy. Director & Public Information Officer, All India Council for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chander Lok Building, Janpath, New Delh-110001.
3. The Chairman, All India Council For Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chander Lok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-11001.
3