Central Information Commission
Mr.Kapil Deo vs All India Council For Technical ... on 15 January, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000960/10989
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000960
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Kapil Deo
D-8, Pink Apartments, Sec-13,
Rohini, Delhi.
Respondent : Mr. M. S. Ghuge
Public Information Officer & Assistant Director All India Council for Technical Education 7th Floor, Chndralok Building, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001.
RTI application filed on : 12/01/2010
PIO replied : 19/01/2010
First appeal filed on : 23/01/2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered
Hearing Notice sent on : 22/12/2010
Hearing held on : 15/01/2011
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Whether it was necessary for IASE, a deemed The Appellant was informed that the application
university Institution, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, fee paid through IPO was not in favour of
Sardarshar, Rajasthan to take prior approval for Member Secy., AICTE. New Delhi. Hence the
starting diploma in Electrical Engg. Appellant was requested to send the requisite
2. Whether the diploma in Electrical Engg. from IASE, application fee by DD/IPO for Rs 10/- drawn in
Rajasthan, a recognized course. favour of Member Secy. AICTE. New. Delhi
3. Whether the diploma holders in Electrical Engg., Further action will be taken on receipt of the
from IASE, Rajsthan eligible for getting prescribed application fee alongwith fresh
departmental promotions in central/state jobs application as per RTI Act 2005.
Ground of First Appeal:
Incorrect information received from the PIO.
First Appellate Authority ordered:
Not ordered.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and incorrect information received from the PIO and no action taken by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. M. S. Ghuge, Public Information Officer & Assistant Director;
The Respondent states that the Appellant had sent the Rs.10/- fee by an IPO in the name of Accounts Officer. The then PIO did not treat this as a proper remittance of fee and hence refused to give the information. The Central Rules published on 16/09/2005 as modified on 17/05/2006 clearly state that an IPO of Bank Draft should be made in the name of the 'Accounts Officer' of the Public Authority. The then PIO stated that since the IPO was not drawn in the name of Member Secretary, AICTE he would not provide the information.
However, the PIO shows that subsequently the information has been provided to the Appellant on 22/03/2010.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information appears to have been provided. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 15 January 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)