Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Dharmendra Chaturvedi vs University Grants Commission on 11 October, 2019

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/UGCOM/A/2018/122771/01825
                                       File no.: CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/122771
In the matter of:
Dharmender Chaturvedi
                                                              ... Appellant
                                      VS
Central Public Information Officer
University Grants Commission,
Bahadurgarh Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002
                                                             ... Respondent

RTI application filed on : 27/07/2017 CPIO replied on : 24/08/2017 First appeal filed on : 26/09/2017 First Appellate Authority order : 11/11/2017 Second Appeal dated : 26/02/2018 Date of Hearing : 10/10/2019 Date of Decision : 10/10/2019 The following were present:

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri Lokesh Kumar Jangra, Section Officer, Representative of the CPIO; Shri Pankaj Chandna, Assistant, UGC, Present in person.

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Whether UGC has given approval for conducting DAO course to CMJ University, Meghalaya.

2. Whether C.M.J University, Meghalaya has the right to conduct Distance D.Ed Courses.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply as he had sought specific information in respect of the period 2011-12. The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given vide letter dated 24.08.2017. He further submitted that the latest status of the CMJ University is also provided to the appellant vide letter dated 09.10.2019.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that the CPIO had given an appropriate reply as per the availability of records. Moreover, the contention of the appellant regarding information relating to specific time period is misplaced. In his RTI application he had not mentioned the time period. Hence, there is no infirmity in the CPIO's reply.

Decision:

In view of the above observations, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter and accordingly upholds the reply of the CPIO. No further action lies.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) 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 2