Central Information Commission
Mr. Jai Prakash Singh vs University Grants Commission on 27 February, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110 067
Tel.: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00299/2112
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00299
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh,
Resident Editor,Daily News Activist,
118-A, M.G.Marg, 2nd Floor, Tulsiani Plaza,
Civil Lines, Allahabad-211001.
Respondent : Mr. K.P.Singh,
Joint Secretary & PIO(CPP-I), University Grants Commission, Bahadurshah, Zafar Marg, New Delh-110002.
RTI application filed on : 15/06/2008 PIO replied : 25/07/2008 First appeal filed on : 11/09/2008 First Appellate Authority order : not mentioned. Second Appeal filed on : 11/11/2008 Detail of required information.
The Appellant had asked in RTI Application for supporting documents along with Rs. 300 Postal orders, circular No. F.6-1(7)/2006(CPP-I) dated 19 May 2008 and press coverage DNA and Hindustan Times dated 29 May 2008 and 4 June 2008 respectively, validity of courses being run on campus, and they have complained that former secretary UGC did not bother to give them relevant information, list of courses, high fee and normal fee, policy of ICICI, why UGC failed to take notice of the Income Tax notice dated 22/11/2005 served on AAIDU, regular meetings of Board and Finance of AAIDU as per UGC circular dated April 2005, why UGC as per circular dated April 2005 failed to take notice of the complaints of 2 district Magistrates of Allahabad on in 2003 and other in 2005, investigate whose land had been mortgaged against Bank Loans in crores, withdrawal of deemed status of AAIDU, whose purview AAIDU comes? How come UGC recommended deemed status for Agriculture related courses how is AAIDU allowed to run numerous courses illegally on campus which are not related to Agriculture, what action are going to take as the complaints of Vimal Dharam Singh has fallen on the deaf ears of former secretary UGC, when will you recommend a CBI probe in to Distance Education Scam, How is UGC going to monitor such grave offences committed by V.C. of AAIDU, harassing employees and that too member of the Board of AAIDU, please inform why no action has not yet been taken against Dr. R.B.Lal and Management of AAIDU when former Pro. VC AAIDU Dr. Sarvajeet Herbert blamed them in a notary affidavit dtd. 23/12/2005 to D.I.G. Police Allahabad, Bank statement of the illegal Trust revealing transactions in crores, when will UGC monitor the diversion of crores of grants/fees by two illegal / unapproved finance controllers in the illegal Yeshu Darbar Trust account? Action taken against those responsible for attending the board/finance meetings of AAIDU as per circular dtd. April 2005, whether UGC has any legal cell to monitor Judicial frauds which have surpassed UGC rules?, when are you going to withdraw deemed status of AAI, remove Dr. R.B.Lal and recommend CBI probe into the country's most sensational biggest education scam of 800 crores? Hoping to get the desired information in time as per RTI rules.
The PIO replied.
The PIO was given information to the appellant Para wise:-
1. The following degree courses and diploma courses were running at the time of conferment of Deemed to be University status to Allahabad. The details of these coursed in the AICTE's list the information had provided to the appellant.
2. This course is not having specific approval. However, deemed University may conduct the courses allied to its approved courses.
3. This query is being referred to Allahabad Agriculture Institute Allahabad for reply as all the deemed to be Universities are covered under RTI Act.
4. Further details may be provided to take necessary action; however, the comments from the deemed to be University are being called.
5. UGC has no information. However, the comments from the deemed to be University are being called.
6. As per the Govt. of India notification, the AICTE may inspect the Deemed to be University (s) on its own.
7. UGC has no information. However, details have been called from the AAIDU.
8. This is being forwarded to Allahabad Agriculture Institute, Allahabad to reply you directly.
9. UGC has no information.
10. UCG had no information. Details are being called from the Allahabad Agriculture Institute, Allahabad.
11. Matter related to Distance Education programme is under consideration of MHRD. The MHRD had issued instruction to review the status in this regard, UGC has issued letter to the concerned University.
12. UGC has taken proper action to stop the Distance Education Mode programmes run by the Allahabad Agricultural Institute, in this regard UGC has issued letter to the concerned University.
13. UGC has taken proper action to stop the Distance Education Mode programmes run by the Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Allahabad. However, the MHRD has issued letter to the concerned University. Allahabad Agriculture Institute, Allahabad comes under the purview of MHRD and is not eligible to receive any grant from UGC.
14. Allahabad reply is awaited. However, the University is being reminded to expedite reply to enable UGC to take necessary action.
15. This is being forwarded to Allahabad Agriculture Institute, Allahabad to reply you under intimation to this office.
16. As above Para 15.
17. Authenticity of letter dated 29/08/2007 can be confirmed from the issuing authority i.e. Distance Education Council. UGC has no such information.
18. There is no such information available with UGC.
19. Allahabad deemed to be University for comments. Since the reply received from the Deemed to be University was not satisfactory, requested to send the point wise comments was again it. Since then, no reply has been received inspite of reminder.
20. UGC has no information Action will be taken only if the charges found to be true.
21. Action will be taken only if the charges are found to be true.
22. The UGC has a Legal Cell which is looking after all the court cases.
23. As per the MOA of the Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Allahabad the Vice Chancellor can continue upto the age of 60 and the services can be extended upto the next 5 years.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
Not replied Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. S.C. Chadha PIO The respondent states that some of the Information was to be provided by Allahabad Agricultural Institute and this was delayed since the Institute did not respond promptly. However it has provided the information to the appellant on 16 January 2009.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information has been provided to the appellant. The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law. This has happened since the deemed PIO Prof. A.K.A. Lawrence, Registrar and PIO of Allahabad Agricultural Institute has replied very late.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the Mr. A.K.A. Lawrence is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1) .
A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 20 March, 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner February 27, 2009 (For any further correspondence, please mention the decision number for a quick disposal)