Central Information Commission
Meenu vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 13 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/NITKS/A/2018/163378/03128
File no.: - CIC/NITKS/A/2018/163378
In the matter of:
Meenu
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
National Institute of Technology (NIT),
Kurukshetra - 136119
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 09/03/2018 CPIO replied on : 01/08/2018 First appeal filed on : 02/07/2018 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 10/10/2018 Date of Hearing : 12/03/2020 Date of Decision : 12/03/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri G R Samanth Ray, Joint Registrar & CPIO, present over VC.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Copy of all the correspondence sent to the PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh to provide requisite information in reference to the orders dated 19.09.2017 in CWP No. 26361 of 2015 titled 'Meenu Vs National Institute of Technology & Another' by the NIT Kurukshetra till date.
2. Copy of all the correspondence received from the PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh in response to your correspondence sent to the PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh for supply of requisite 1 information in reference to the orders dated 19.09.2017 in CWP No. 26361 of 2015 titled 'Meenu vs National Institute of Technology & Another' till date.
3. Copy of all the correspondence sent to the M.M. College, Fatehabad to provide requisite information in reference to the orders dated 18.10.2011 in CWP No. 13225 of 2009 titled 'Dr. Vikas Chowdhary Vs NIT and others' by the NIT Kurukshetra before compliance of the orders dated 18.10.2011 of the Hon'ble High Court.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided incomplete and wrong information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present to plead his case despite service of valid hearing notice on 24.02.2020 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED033297290IN.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 01.08.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that an apt reply was provided to the appellant on 01.08.2018. Since the appellant was not present to point out any deficiency in the reply of the CPIO, the Commission cannot give any further relief in the matter.
Decision:
In view of the above, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO and does not find any scope for intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) 2 File no.: - CIC/NITKS/A/2018/163378 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