Central Information Commission
Devesh Kumar Tripathi vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 31 August, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal Nos. CIC/GGSIU/A/2018/103133,
107743, 127554, 150132, 158211,
161756,
CIC/GNCTD/A/2018/174930/GGSIU
CIC/GGSIU/A/2019/101442
Shri Devesh Kumar Tripathi ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
Through: Sh. Dileep Kr. Misra - Advocate
VERSUS/ बनाम
PIO/Asst. Registrar (Plg.), GGSIP,
Dwarka, New Delhi
PIO/Asst. Registrar (Admn.), GGSIP,
Dwarka, New Delhi
PIO/Asst. Registrar (Academic), GGSIP, Dwarka,
New Delhi
PIO/Asst. Registrar (Admissions), GGSIP, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Dwarka, New Delhi
Through: Sh. Navin Bhavdas - PIO, Dr. Nitin
Malik - JR(Admn), Dr. Geeta Mahajan, Smt.
Monika Sehgal
Date of Hearing : 29.08.2019
Date of Decision : 30.08.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
103133 23.10.2017 29.11.2017 13.12.2017 Nil
107743 21.11.2017 15.12.2017 28.12.2017 Nil
127554 01.01.2018 19.01.2018 29.01.2018 14.03.2018
150132 25.05.2018 02.07.2018 28.06.2018 19.07.2018
158211 09.07.2018 06.08.2018 10.08.2018 12.09.2018
161756 13.07.2018 20.08.2018 27.08.2018 17.09.2018
174930 14.09.2018 30.10.2018 26.10.2018 12.12.2018
101442 24.09.2018 31.10.2018 30.10.2018 04.12.2018
Page 1 of 9
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/GGSIU/A/2018/103133 Appellant filed RTI application dated 23.10.2017 seeking information on 4 points, inter alia:
1. Is there any specified number of seats for getting admission in Lateral Entry a particular course of Engineering sanctioned from Universities to a JIMS Engineering Management Technical Campus?
2. How many students get transferred from other colleges/Universities to JIMS Engineering Management Technical Campus in E.C.E Course in II Semester in the running session?
3. Is the information regarding the student migration/transfers in this institute or from this institute to other has been displayed in the college site in JIMS Engineering Management Technical Campus? Etc. PIO/A.R (Plg.) vide letter dated 29.11.2017 forwarded the information to the appellant as provided by the concerned PIO. Copy enclosed.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 13.12.2017 which was not adjudicated therefore appellant filed Second Appeal in the Commission Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing. Appellant is represented by his advocate. All the eight appeals dealt herein relate to the grievance of the Appellant relating to denial of NOC to the Appellant's daughter, from JIMS Engineering Management Technical Campus for the purpose of her migration to Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Technology, another institute affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. Being thus aggrieved, the Appellant has filed Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court, which had been dismissed by the Court vide order dated 13.11.2017, after discussing all the relevant facts and discussing the rival contentions of both parties threadbare. The Appellant has now filed these RTI applications seeking information to substantiate his future round of litigation in the same case.
The Respondent is present and has submitted the copy of the High Court orders by the Single Judge and even the subsequent order by the Division Bench on 26.02.2018. It has been averred by the Respondent that at both the stage/s of writ petition and the LPA, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had declined to pass any directions against the University nor had they given any favourable decision to the Appellant, despite discussing all the material facts of the case. The Respondent further contended that though all available and information, as permissible under the RTI Act have been made available to the Appellant, every answer or information provided is again questioned by a subsequent RTI application or appeal, thereby making it an unending process.
Decision:Page 2 of 9
Upon hearing the contentions of both parties and perusal of records of the case, the Commission notes that substantial information in response to the Appellant's queries have already been made available to him. The Respondent has produced a letter dated 02.02.2018, whereby even the query number 4 has been adequately answered by the Respondent, though it is with respect to another RTI application filed by the Appellant. Considering the number of RTI applications filed by the Appellant on the same issue, the Commission excuses the same.
It is noted that information against each of the queries raised by the Appellant has been adequately provided to him. The Commission is of the opinion that no further action is required in this case.
CIC/GGSIU/A/2018/107743 Appellant filed RTI application dated 21.11.2017 seeking information on 5 points, inter alia:
1. How many students have been transferred from Junagarh University, Bahadurgarh under or for any other college to JIMS College Noida, affiliated to this university in the third semester in running session.
2. What is the capacity in JIMS College to get admission through Lateral Entry (CET) in E.C.E Course in the running session in III semester?
3. Is the student admitter through Lateral entry in the III semester in JIMS College in respect of E.C.E course, not including in the total allotted strengths, as allotted in 1 semester in E.C.E course or is there any separate session in college for Lateral entry student. Etc PIO/A.R (Plg.) vide letter dated 15.12.2017 forwarded the information to the appellant provided by the concerned PIO. Copy enclosed. Another PIO reply dated 05.12.2017 is also found enclosed with the Second appeal.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 28.12.2017 which was not adjudicated therefore appellant filed Second Appeal in the Commission Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing and have reiterated their respective contentions, as borne out from the above factual rendition of the case at hand.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case, the Commission is satisfied that adequate information has been made available to the Appellant and there appears no infirmity in the reply of the Respondent. The Commission is of the opinion that no further action is required in this case.Page 3 of 9
CIC/GGSIU/A/2018/127554 Appellant filed RTI application dated 01.01.2018 seeking the following information on 03 points:
1. Provide detailed information about provision of Lateral Entry Admission and proper admission process in the first year of any discipline, if any circular/ordinance has been passed to regulate the admission, kindly be provided, on my cost.
2. Provide the criteria of medical ground when NOC for transfer/migration can get/allowed.
3. Provide the total number of students in ECE (III Sem) in the running course 2017-2018 and total capacity of student in the same course in the same session in respect JIMS College, Noida.
PIO/A.R (Plg.), vide letter dated 19.01.2018 forwarded the information to the appellant as provided by the concerned PIO.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 29.01.2018. FAA vide order dated 14.03.2018 directed the PIO, Admission Branch to provide the information w.r.t. point no. 3 of the RTI application within 7 days.
In compliance of the FAA order, PIO/A.R (Plg.) furnished the reply dated 20.03.2018of point no. 3 as directed by FAA.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both parties are present and the Appellant's counsel states the NOC from JIMS has been unjustly denied to his client's daughter, hence these questions had been asked by him vide the RTI application. The appellant has expressed dissent over the response to query number 2. He seeks detailed information or examples which are considered genuine medical grounds, by the Respondent for allowing issuance of the NOC.
Respondent explained in details that generally students from Delhi take admissions in the NCR colleges located far off, based on their merit. These students seek migration during subsequent years, to colleges in Delhi on various grounds. The primary criteria for seeking such migration as per the Ordinance-7, is to obtain NOC from both colleges. In this case, though one of the colleges has given the NOC, the college from where she sought to migrate denied the NOC citing various reasons, loss of revenue to the College being one of them. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has discussed the issue at length and even the DB has refrained from making comments or passing any directions in this regard. The decisions dated 13.11.2017 and 26.02.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have been placed on record by the Respondent, in this regard. Furthermore, pursuant to the decision of the Division Bench, the GGSIP constituted a Committee which reviewed the issue about migration of the student and declined the same upon considering the facts of the case on 22.03.2018. A copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Committee has been placed on record by the respondent.Page 4 of 9
Decision:
Upon addressing the facts of the case, the Commission notes that the Appellant wants to be provided with detailed interpretation/opinion of the public authority as to what constitutes the word "genuine" or "medical ground"
for issuance of the NOC. The provisions of the RTI Act cannot be exercised to provide any opinion of the public authority and is confined to provide access to information which exists in material form. RTI Act does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries in which the petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his queries with prefixes as why, what, when and whether. The petitioner's right extends only to seeking information as defined in section 2(f) either by pointing the specific file/document, paper or record etc., or by mentioning the type of information as may be available with the specified public authority. Hence, the information sought by the Appellant cannot be provided, because what constitutes genuine medical ground for issuance of NOC for the purpose of migration of a student, is not defined nor available as such in the records, but is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the appropriate authority.
CIC/GGSIU/A/2018/150132 Appellant filed RTI application dated 25.05.2018 seeking information regarding:
BOM Resolution - 19th Meeting dated 08.07.2002 Gazette Notification No. F2(2)/Ord/IPU/DRP/2005/2431 dated 10.03.2005 BOM Resolution - 29.4 dated 20.03.2006 Gazette Notification No. F2(30)/Ord/IPU/DRP/2006/2006/3300 dated 01.08.2006 BOM Resolution - 45.3 dated 11.02.2011 Gazette Notification No. F2(2) IPV/JR(C)/Ord/Amend/2011/146 dated 30.05.2011.
PIO/D.R (Plg), vide letter dated 02.07.2018 forwarded the information to the appellant as provided by the concerned PIO. Copy enclosed.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 28.06.2018. FAA vide order dated 19.07.2018 directed the PIO/Co- ordination branch to provide all available information within 7 days free of cost.
Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of the FAA order, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Submission dated 19.08.2019 has been received from the PIO/Section Officer, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, providing copies of the resolutions once again.Page 5 of 9
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing and have reiterated their respective contentions, as borne out from the above factual rendition of the case at hand.
Decision:
The Appellant has chosen not to press this case. Matter is disposed off as such.
CIC/GGSIU/A/2018/158211 Appellant filed RTI application dated 09.07.2018 seeking the following information on 03 points:
1. In ordinance-7, para no. 2B(2) has contained the word under genuine circumstances is any application has been allowed for any appellant/student till the date, if yes.
2. What were the circumstances to be considered as genuine circumstances as the application allowed, in respect of transfer of student from on college to another affiliated to the same university?
3. Kindly be provided explanation as considered genuine circumstances as and when an application for transfer can allowed?
PIO/D.R (Plg), vide letter dated 06.08.2018 forwarded the information to the appellant as provided by the concerned PIO. Copy enclosed.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 10.08.2018. FAA vide order dated 12.09.2018 directed the PIO/Admission branch to provide information, if any, has been done by University under Ordinance 7 para 2b.
In compliance of the FAA's order, PIO/D.R (Plg) furnished the information vide reply dated 20.09.2018.
Still aggrieved dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing and reiterate the facts of the case as discussed above.
Decision:
Considering the averments of the parties, query number 1 is refocused since it is noted that it was not correctly worded in the RTI application. The Respondent shall provide a reply affirming or negating whether any application has been allowed for any appellant/student till the date stating a yes or no. This information shall be provided by the Respondent to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.Page 6 of 9
In view of the contentions of the respondent, it is evident that applications for migration are allowed on the basis of NOC issued by both colleges to which the students are migrating to and from, hence no further circumstances are necessary for consideration.
CIC/GGSIU/A/2018/161756 Appellant filed RTI application dated 13.07.2018 seeking the following information;
1. Provide the report about action taken against JIMS College, Noida on the complaint vide Dy. No. 202 dated 06.03.2018.
2. Provide the report about action taken against complaint vide Dy. No. 263 dated 27.03.2018 refer against the office.
PIO/D.R (Plg), vide letter dated 10.08.2018 forwarded the information to the appellant as provided by the concerned PIO. Copy enclosed.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 27.08.2018. FAA vide order dated 17.09.2018 directed the PIO/Admission branch to provide information within 7 days free of cost.
Feeling aggrieved over non-compliance of the FAA order, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both parties are present and reiterate their respective contentions. During the course of hearing, the emerging facts indicate that pursuant to the FAA's order, the Appellant was called for inspection but he did not avail the same. Copy of reply dated 13.03.2018 has been placed on record by the Respondent.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing the averments of the parties, the Commission is satisfied that information as available on records have been provided to the appellant. The letter dated 13.03.2018 annexed with the PIO's reply dated 10.08.2018 which provides a report of JIMS College has been submitted by the Respondent and upon perusal of the same, it is found acceptable.
CIC/GNCTD/A/2018/174930/GGSIU Appellant filed RTI application dated 14.09.2018 seeking information on 02 points, as follows;
1. It is shown on your website on date 04.08.2017 there was 2 seats vacant for direct admission in JIMS college Noida in LE-BTECH while it was also shown 3 seats vacant on date 14.08.2017 in the same college in the same course which seats was for further vacant for the reason.Page 7 of 9
2. It is also shown in your official website on dated 04.08.2017 vacant seats of direct admission and also shown on date 14.08.2017. Remaining seats of direct admission, how it was different from the position shown on the 04.08.2017.
PIO/A.R (Admission), vide letter dated 30.08.2018 furnished a point wise reply to the appellant.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 26.10.2018. FAA vide order dated 12.12.2018 directed that the information of vacant seats to be given within 7 days free of cost.
Feeling aggrieved over non-compliance of the FAA order, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing of the case. It is noted that though PIO had provided appropriate and adequate information vide reply dated 30.08.2018, the FAA had in a mechanical manner directed that information may be provided.
Decision:
Considering that the FAA had directed that information on vacant seats be given, the matter is remanded to the Registrar/FAA to note the inadequacy in the PIO's reply and implement the order of the earlier FAA by a reasoned order. Copy of the FAA's order shall be submitted before the Commission by 13.09.2019.
CIC/GGSIU/A/2019/101442 Appellant filed RTI application dated 24.09.2018 seeking information on 02 points:
1. Kindly provided records (copy) in respect of migration for seven years seeking transfer by students from one college to another affiliated to same university.
2. Kindly provide the records for seven years as to transfer/migration application was allowed and on which ground?
PIO/A.R (Admission), vide letter dated 31.10.2018 forwarded the information to the appellant provided by the concerned PIO. Copy enclosed.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, appellant filed First Appeal dated 30.10.2018. FAA vide order dated 04.12.2018 directed the PIO that information to be given within 7 days.
Feeling aggrieved over the non compliance of the FAA order, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.Page 8 of 9
Decision:
Upon hearing both parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to provide a revised reply furnishing total number of applications received regarding intra University migration, number of applications approved/not approved and the grounds for rejection. This Revised reply shall be provided within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
The appeals are thus disposed off with these directions.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 9 of 9