Central Information Commission
Kailashchandra Yadav vs Indian Institute Of Technology , Mumbai on 10 April, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/RM/C/2014/000686/MP
Complainant : Shri Kailashchandra Yadav, Dungarpur
Public Authority : Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai
Date of Hearing : 31.03.2017
Date of Decision : 06.04.2017
Present:
Complainant : Not Present
Respondent : Shri H.S. Verma, Deputy Registrar- through VC
RTI application : 12.06.2014
CPIO's reply : NA
First Appeal : NA
FAA's order : NA
Complaint : 19.07.2014
ORDER
1. Shri Kailashchandra Yadav, the complainant, sought information regarding ISTE workshop conducted by IIT Bombay in Dungarpur College of Engineering and Technology (DCET). The complainant sought the dates on which the workshop in question was organized by IIT Bombay in DCET along with the details of the faculty that attended the workshop; total no. of Akash tablets distributed by IIT, Bombay in DCET; objective of ISTE workshop and educational qualification of workshop coordinator, teaching assistants; etc., through four points
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) did not respond to the RTI application of the complainant within the time period prescribed. The complainant, not having received any information from the CPIO, filed complaint before the Commission stating that he had not received the desired information from the CPIO till date and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide him the desired information.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant was not present despite notice for hearing having been duly sent to him. The complainant had sought certain information regarding ISTE workshop conducted by IIT Bombay in DCET but, no reply was given to him by the CPIO till date.
4. The respondent submitted that the complainant filed RTI application before the respondent on 12.06.2014 and immediately approached the Commission filing complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, directly, without approaching the First Appellate Authority (FAA) first. The FAA did not get an opportunity to provide him the information sought. The respondent, however, submitted that the CPIO had provided entire information containing 9 pages, free of cost as sought by the complainant vide letter dated 19.02.2015. He stated that the officer concerned was given other important work and had to travel across the country in that connection. Therefore, there was some delay on the part of the CPIO and they requested for condonation of that delay which was not intentional.
5. On hearing the respondent and perusing the records before it, the Commission observes that the information sought by the complainant was provided to him by the CPIO in reply to his RTI application vide letter dated 19.02.2015 and therefore, no further action is called for on the part of the Commission. The Commission condones the delay on the part of the CPIO. The complaint is closed.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer Shri Kailashchandra Yadav, Indian Institute of Technology, S/o Shri Shankarlal Yadav, Powai, Mumbai, C-13, Kabir Nagar, Maharashtra- 400 076 Housing Board Phase-3, Dungarpur, Rajasthan