Central Information Commission
Harish Parashar vs University Grants Commission on 27 May, 2026
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UGCOM/C/2025/628701
HARISH PARASHAR .... शकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
RTI CELL, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI -110002 .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.05.2026
Date of Decision : 18.05.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 27.02.2025
CPIO replied on : 25.04.2025
First appeal filed on : 30.04.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 08.05.2025
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24.06.2025
Information sought:
1. The Complainant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 27.02.2025 seeking the following information:
"Subject: Right to Information Application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information regarding action taken on Page 1 of 6 complaints sent to UGC against NIMT College of Law, Kotputli (a private college affiliated to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur) Sir/Madam, This application is filed under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking specific information regarding the action taken by the University Grants Commission (UGC) on complaints received against NIMT College of Law, Kotputli (a private college affiliated to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur, Affiliation College Code: 79), and related student grievances.
Details of Complaints:
1. Complaint dated 14/11/2024: Submitted via speed post (tracking number ED454331063IN) dated 29/11/2024, addressed to the Chairperson, University Grants Commission. This complaint pertains to issues including, but not limited to, fee hikes, unjustified penalties, forgery of signatures, and non-compliance with UGC guidelines.
2. Follow-up Complaints dated 04/12/2024 & 03/01/2025: Submitted via speed post (tracking number ED454331077IN) and registered post (tracking number RD973415856IN), respectively, addressed to the same authority, adding further issues to the original complaint.
3. Complaint Registered in UGC Samadhan Portal: Submitted online through the UGC Samadhan portal on 03/01/2025 with ticket ID STU20251675249776542.
4. College and University Details:
University: Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur Private College: NIMT College of Law, Kotputli, Rajasthan (Affiliation College Code: 79) Information/Documents (certified) Requested under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005:
1. Action Taken on Complaint dated 14/11/2024 (Point 1): Complete authorized information and documents (date-wise) detailing the action taken by the UGC on the complaint dated 14/11/2024.
2. Action Taken on Follow-up Complaints dated 04/12/2024 & 03/01/2025 (Point 2):
Complete authorized information and documents (date-wise) detailing the action taken by the UGC on the follow-up complaints submitted.
3. Action Taken on Complaint filed on UGC Samadhan Portal (Point 3): Complete authorized information and documents (date-wise) detailing the action taken by the UGC on the complaint filed on the UGC Samadhan Portal with ticket ID STU20251675249776542 on 03/01/2025.
4. Documents to Confirm Adherence to UGC Guidelines (Point 4): Complete authorized information and documents regarding the confirmation of NIMT College of Law, Kotputli, to adhere to the Page 2 of 6 guidelines of the UGC, specifically related to the Student Grievance Redressal Mechanism and the appointment of academic faculties.
5. Certified documents required for Standard Operating Procedure and Students Grievances redressal Forum:
SOP and students Grievances redressal Forum of University grand Commission with respect to Student grievances related to the academic institutions of India. See Attachment for detail"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 25.04.2025 stating as under:
"Reply :- As per Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, The Right to Information (RTI) Act is primarily meant to provide access to information, not to resolve grievances or problems. According to RTI guidelines, requests should be for existing records and documents, rather than seeking explanations or justifications."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 30.04.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 08.05.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Complainant is before the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Shri Harish Parashar present in person. Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Joshi, US along with Devendra Kushal, SO/CPIO present in person, and Ms. Rachna Verma, US present through video conference.
5. Written statement filed by the Complainant as well as by the CPIO is taken on record.
6. Complainant while expressing his dissatisfaction to the CPIO's reply restricted his arguments to the fact that information sought regarding complete adherence to UGC guidelines and certified copy of Standard Operating Procedures and Students Grievance redressal forum by the NIMT College of Law, Kotputli at point No. 4.4 and 4.5 of RTI application in question are yet to be provided by the CPIO and FAA.
Page 3 of 67. Ms. Rachna Verma, Under Secretary, UGC submitted that reply along with relevant available information has already been provided to the Complainant by informing him that his subject complaint was forwarded to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur dated 18.03.2025 (copy attached). It was further informed to the Complainant that his information sought related to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur is a State Public University which fall under the jurisdiction of State Government authorities. In addition to this reply, the Respondent apprised the Bench that identical RTI application of the Complainant has been adjudicated by this Bench vide File No. CIC/UGCOM/C/2025/618356 dated 03.03.2026 with no further intervention in the matter. Furthermore, the RTI application in question was also forwarded to the concerned University who provided a point-wise reply to the Complainant vide letter dated 12.02.2026 (copy enclosed in the written statement). However, if the Complainant is still not satisfied, the Respondent expressed her willingness to revisit the contents of point No. 4.4 and 4.5 of RTI application in question to provide relevant information subject to its availability to the Complainant.
Decision:
8. Heard the parties.
9. On perusal of the facts on record and hearing the parties, the Commission noted at the outset that an identical Complaint of the instant RTI application has already been heard and disposed of by this Bench in the File No. CIC/UGCOM/C/2025/618356 dated 03.03.2026 with a finding that no scope of intervention in the matter. Generally speaking, the principle of Res Judicata (Latin for "a matter judged") is a legal doctrine preventing the same parties from re-litigating a case or issue already decided by a competent Court. This legal doctrine ensures finality in legal proceedings by barring subsequent suits on identical subject matter, parties and cause of action. It is noteworthy here that prayer of Complainant seeking action against the CPIO by filing similar Complaint on RTI application on the same subject that were decided by the Commission on 03.03.2026 as stated above is not acceptable.
10. Based on the facts stated by the CPIO in their reply that Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, is a State Public University and falls under the purview of the State, which is not covered under the jurisdiction of Central Information Commission and upon perusal of records, the Commission noted that this is a Complaint filed under Section 18(2) the RTI Page 4 of 6 Act, 2005 where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgment decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011: AIR 2012 SC 864 wherein it was held as under:-
"...Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19.
This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. It is well known when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the Court should not, in the name of interpretation, lay down a procedure which is contrary to the express statutory provision. It is a time honoured principle as early as from the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch. D. 426] that where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden..."
11. The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. On-going through the records, it is noted by the Commission that the CPIO has furnished timely response to the Complainant. In addition to it, further clarification tendered by the FAA while disposing the First Appeal of the Complainant is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
11. There is no mala fide denial of information or otherwise is found on the part of CPIO in the instant case which calls for any action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, Commission relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Page 5 of 6 Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 wherein it was held as under:
"....Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
xxx ......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
12. Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope for intervention in the matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लंगी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णतस या पत त) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011-26767500 Date Shri HARISH PARASHAR Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)