Gopal Chandra Mohapatra vs All India Council For Technical ... on 8 April, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Gopal Chandra Mohapatra vs All India Council For Technical ... on 8 April, 2021

Author: Saroj Punhani

Bench: Saroj Punhani

                               के ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                            बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

File No : CIC/AICTE/A/2019/131899

Gopal Chandra Mohapatra                                 ......अपीलकता/Appellant



                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम


CPIO,
All India Council For
Technical Education, RTI Cell,
North Western Regional Office
Chandigarh, Plot No. 1 A, 5th Floor,
DTE Building Dakshin Marg, Sector 36 A,
Chandigarh - 160036.                               .... ितवादीगण /Respondent


Date of Hearing                   :   08/04/2021
Date of Decision                  :   08/04/2021

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER :            Saroj Punhani

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on          :   20/03/2019
CPIO replied on                   :   13/04/2019
First appeal filed on             :   16/04/2019
First Appellate Authority order   :   06/06/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated        :   28/06/2019


                                          1
 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 20.03.2019 seeking information as follows;

"Give the AICTE approve of DRIT course of PTU, Jalandar Punjab on 2010- 2013, provide only letter of AICTE approve. If not approve that time, how approve this diploma by AICTE. Provide the information."

The CPIO replied to the appellant on 13.04.2019 stating that "information is available on www.aicte-India.org from the year 2012-13 to till date under link Statistics->Approved Institutions."

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.04.2019. FAA's order dated 06.06.2019 upheld the reply of CPIO and also provided additional information which is as follows:-

"...It is also informed that as per Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY & ANR. Vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION & Ors. in Civil Appeal 2056 of 1999, Universities/State Universities/Central Universities do not require prior approval of AICTE to commence a new course or programmes in technical education. However, Universities have obligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms laid down by the AICTE. It is also informed that as per Supreme Court order in CA No. 17869-17870/2017) Deemed Universities/Constituent College have been brought under the purview of AICTE, It is to inform the appellant that New Technical Institution/Colleges offering Technical Course(s)/Programme(s) shall not be established without prior approval of the Council. State and Central Universities/ Constituent Colleges/Private Universities, if interested in seeking approval from AICTE for the first time may submit an application as a new Technical Institution."

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Gurudev Singh, Consultant and representative of the CPIO, present through video- conference.

Rep. of CPIO submitted that timely response along with specific hyperlink has been provided to the Appellant in terms of the RTI Act. He further submitted that in addition FAA's vide its order dated 06.06.2019 informed the Appellant that Universities/State Universities/Central Universities do not require any prior approval of AICTE to commence a new course or programmes in technical education as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Bharathidasan University & Anr. vs. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. (civil appeal 2056 of 1999).

Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the reply provided by the CPIO and also further explanation given by the FAA adequately suffices the information sought for in the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the Appellant has not availed the opportunity to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submission.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter and upholds the submissions of the CPIO.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission