Central Information Commission
Vinay Kumar Jain vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 29 October, 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/2018/104250
CIC/GGSIU/A/2018/104253
CIC/GGSIU/A/2018/104464
Shri Vinay Kumar Jain ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/ बनाम
PIO/Asstt. Registrar-(Plg.), ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
Through: Sh. Naveen Bhardwaj, CPIO
Sh. Dalip Kumar, COO, VIPS
Date of Hearing : 23.08.2019
Date of Decision : 29.10.2019
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
104253 11.08.2017 04.09.2017 19.09.2017 02.01.2018
104250 01.08.2017 15.09.2017 07.09.2017 02.01.2018
104464 31.07.2017 - - 07.09.2017 - -
CIC/GGSIU/A/2018/104253
Appellant vide RTI application dated 11.08.2017 sought information on
following:-
1. Copies of the list of admissions made to BA LL.B/BBA, LL.B under the
management quota by the private affiliated Colleges with GGS IP University for
the academic years commencing from 2012 onwards to till academic year
commencing from 2017.
2. Copies of note sheet of the file processing with approval of list of admissions.
3. List, name and designation of the officers/ officials of GGS IP University.
4. Copies of the note sheet of file(s) processing issue of office orders/circulars/
OM/ Instructions etc.
5. Copy of the note sheet/approval of 'Competent Authority' in the F.No. IPU-
7/online counseling/2017 w.e.f. of 01.05.2017 to 10.08.2017.
6. All office orders of delegation of power to the Registrar GGS IP University in
respect of admissions made under management quota to issue orders/regulate
admission etc..
A.R.(Plg.)/PIO vide letter dated 04.09.2017 provided point wise information to
the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 19.09.2017.
On 3.10.2017, Sh. Roop Singh, Asstt. Registrar sent hearing notice to the
Appellant.
On 9.10.2017, Appellant replied to the above letter that he was not obligated
to appear in person for the FAA hearing and therefore, the same be decided on
merits.
FAA vide order dated 02.01.2018, took note of the fact that despite being given
an additional opportunity, the Appellant chose to remain absent from the
hearing on both the 2 occasions. FAA further directed the Appellant to
inspect the records after taking prior appointment from PIO within 15 days.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission
with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
None appeared on behalf of the Appellant despite service in advance of notice for the hearing.
Respondent submits that despite being offered opportunity to conduct inspection, the Appellant remained absent and did not avail the opportunity. Respondent clarifies that the files constructed during the process of admissions, is later on handed back to the applicants.
Decision:
Perusal of the records reveal that FAA vide order dated 02.01.2018 had offered opportunity to conduct inspection to the Appellant. However, Appellant chose to not avail of the opportunity. Neither Appellant nor any authorized representative is present on his behalf to argue the case or express dissatisfaction. The information sought is voluminous, the collecting and collating of which would divert the resources of the Respondent public authority.
Under the circumstances, the Appellant is at liberty to approach the Respondent public authority to inspect the available records in compliance with the FAO thereof, at a mutually convenient date and time. Appellant is directed to carry a valid ID proof on the date of inspection of the file.
The appeal stands disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
CIC/GGSIU/A/2018/104250 Appellant filed RTI application dated 01.08.2017 seeking information on three pointsabout list of admissions made by Vivekanand Institute of Professional Studies under the category of Management quota. In this regard, he sought following information:-
1. Copies of the recognition and affiliation granted to the Vivekanand Institute of Professional Studies (VIPS), Pitampura, Delhi for conducting BA LL.B, BBA LL.B, B.Com LL.B five years courses.
2. Copy of the note sheet and entire file of the affiliation and recognition granted to the Vivekanand Institute of Professional Studies (VIPS), Delhi for conducting BA LL.B, BBA LL.B, B.Com LL.B five years courses.
3. Copies of the inspection report, monitoring records of the functionality and working of the Vivekanand Institute of Professional Studies (VIPS), Delhi for conducting BA LL.B, BBA LL.B, B.Com LL.B five years courses.
PIO vide letter dated 15.09.2017, forwarded the reply received from the VIPS & Academic branch of the University to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the reply so received, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 07.09.2017. FAA vide order dated 02.01.2018 directed the PIO to ask the Appellant to inspect the records after taking prior appointment within fifteen days.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance with FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
None appeared on behalf of the Appellant despite service in advance of notice for the hearing.
Respondent submits that the RTI application was addressed to the Bar Council of India and therefore does not pertain to them.
Decision:
Commission notes that the reply dated 14.09.2017, served on the Appellant does not correspond to the present RTI application. Therefore, Commission directs Sh. Naveen Bhardwaj, CPIO and Sh. Dalip Kumar, COO, VIPS to forward a copy of this order to their respective PIOs who are further directed to provide a revised/detailed/satisfactory reply to the Appellant, under intimation to the Commission, within 4 weeks from the date of issue of this order. It is made clear that non-compliance of the stipulated timeline shall attract penal action against the concerned PIO.
The appeal stands disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
CIC/GGSIU/A/2018/104464 Appellant vide RTI application dated 11.08.2017 sought information on four points about copies of admissions made by the Vivekanand Institute of professional Studies (VIPS), Pitampura, Delhi under the category of management quota in various professional courses for the academic years commencing from 2012 onwards to till recent years. In this respect, he sought following information:-
1. Copies of the list of admissions made by the VIPS.
2. Copies of compliance affidavit and document furnished to the IP University for the various admissions made in various professional courses commencing from 2012 onwards to till recent year by VIPS in terms of the provisions of Delhi Professional Colleges of Institutes.
3. Copies of inspections and checks carried out by IP University of VIPS for the admissions made from management quota.
4. Copies of all rules/regulations/instructions/office orders issued by GGS IP University in respect of admissions to be done under management quota by private colleges.
Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 07.09.2017. Feeling aggrieved as neither the PIO nor the FAA furnished the information to the Appellant, he approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
None appeared on behalf of the Appellant despite service in advance of notice for the hearing.
Respondent fails to explain why neither a reply was sent to the Appellant in response to the RTI application nor the First Appeal was adjudicated.
Decision:
The Commission expresses its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the then PIO/Dr. Vijay Kumar (Dy. Registrar, Purchase), in not providing a reply to the Appellant and the FAA, in not adjudicating the First Appeal. This reflects poorly on the state of affairs in the Respondent public authority. The Appellant is not present to contest his case or express reasons for his dissatisfaction. Therefore, under the circumstances, the Commission hereby, directs:
(i). Sh. Naveen Bhardwaj, CPIO and through him the then PIO/Dr. Vijay Kumar (Dy. Registrar, Purchase), who is further directed to submit a satisfactory and detailed explanation for a) not providing information to the Appellant, without any reasonable cause, b) causing an obstruction in the flow of information and c) violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. This explanation must reach the Commission within 4 weeks from the date of issue of this order, failing which necessary action shall be initiated by the Registry, in terms of law.
(ii). The case to be remanded to the FAA/GGSIU to adjudicate over the matter and decide the same on merits giving specific directions to the PIO to furnish the available information to the Appellant. The appeal shall be decided by a reasoned, speaking order, under intimation to the Commission, with a copy marked to the Appellant, within 4 weeks from the date of issue of this order, failing which appropriate action for non-
compliance shall be commenced suo motu.
The appeal stands disposed off accordingly, with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514