Central Information Commission
Mr.Syed Ehteshamul Haque vs Aligarh Muslim University on 29 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/2010/000586/11178
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000586
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Syed Ehteshamul Haque
Hotel Gulmarg Purani Chungi,
Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh
Respondent : Dr. Suhail Sabir
Public Information Officer & Provost Mohsinul Mulk Hall Aligarh Muslim University, MHRD, Aligarh - 202002, Uttar Pradesh RTI application filed on : 23/10/2009 PIO replied : 20/11/2009 First appeal filed on : 10/12/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 09/01/2009 Second Appeal received on : 05/03/2010 Notice of Hearing sent on : 27/12/2010 Hearing held on : 29/01/2011 Information Sought
1. Reasons for hall transfer without any prior notice
2. Facts and reasons for not following directives in the high court case quoted in my case
3. Reasons for allowing similar cases in the MM hall
4. Reasons for not implementing decision of central allotment committee in students referred above
5. Reasons for providing no accommodation according to order of CAC
6. Reasons for invoking the decision after 3 months
7. Copy of complaints from 1 august to October 2009
8. The date(s) on which I was informed on the above complaints Office and file noting
9. Certified copy of the minutes of CAC together with the body approved the implementation
10. Facets and reasons for no implementation in other halls Reply of the PIO
1. Transfer was as per rules and ample time was given for the alternative arrangements
2. There is no directives for the transfer to NRSC in the office memo of Controller of Examination AMU
3. There was only one case and not similar
4. Reason was that no earlier decision was provided by CAC prior to taking over of provost MM hall
5. The moment matter was brought to the knowledge of the undersigned the applicant was asked to shift to NRSC
6. As given in query 5
7. There were no complaints as such
8. Not applicable according to 7
9. Copies attached
10. Not concerned to undersigned First Appeal:
The information for point 1 to 6 is not providing any facts or reasons. The reply to point no.9 does not provide information about the said committee. The reply to 10 is against the spirit of RTI act. Order of the FAA:
The queries have already been answered by the PIO and answers are according to the queries, so the appeal is not maintainable.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Appellant is aggrieved with the information supplied by the PIO. He believes the same is incomplete and incorrect Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Syed Ehteshamul Haque;
Respondent : Dr. Suhail Sabir, Public Information Officer & Provost;
The Appellant has sought reasons for certain actions in queries 01 to 06. The PIO has stated that there are no reasons on the record for these, but he has provided reasons which he believes were the correct reasons. The PIO has provided most of the information but is now directed to provide specific information on the following to the Appellant:
1- Attested photocopies of all CAC Minutes from 2007 to 2010 to the appellant. 2- If any authority or body has approved these minutes attested photocopy of the same will be provided. If there is no such approval this will be stated. 3- On query-10 the PIO has submitted the information which was available with him.
However, he states that the information sought by the Appellant would be also be with the PIOs of other Halls. The PIO is directed to get this information from the other halls and provided it to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information on all three points as directed above to the Appellant before 20 February 2011.
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 29 January 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AM)