Central Information Commission
Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh vs University Of Delhi on 8 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/2010/000410/10839
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000410
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh
15/5, IIIrd Floor, East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi.
Respondent : Mr. Jay Chanda
Public Information Officer & Dy. Registrar University of Delhi Main Campus, Delhi - 110007.
RTI application filed on : 30/09/2009
PIO replied : 14/10/2009
First appeal filed on : 14/12/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 05/01/2009
Notice of Hearing sent on : 22/12/2010
Hearing held on : 08/01/2011
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Copy of the article allegedly written by It is not information, which can be supplied
Professor Ashwani K. Bansal, member, DRC; under Right to Information Act.
along with citation/reference of the Journal in Applicant may contact the Professor concerned
which published it. directly.
2. Details of the authority on the basis of which This is not information, which can be supplied.
Professor Ashwani K. Bansal, member, DRC
made the proposition that Transfer pricing was a topic relating to Custom laws.
3. When Ordinance Vl-B requires that a DRC must This is not information. The Departmental consist of Two readers and two lecturers, Research Committee was properly constituted reasons as to why the Dean constituted the DRC as per Ordinance VT-B. only with one reader and one lecturer in open contravention of the ordinance.
4. Reasons as to why the mandatory criterion of "seniority" as laid down in Ordinance Vl-B was not followed and why the members were handpicked by the Dean while selecting members on the DRC from the cadre of 'reader"
and 'lecturer".
5. Reasons as to why DRC was convened in the This is not information, which can be supplied.
absence of the VC's nominee in contravention of It was further informed that presence of all Ordinance Vl-B. members or Vice-Chancellor's nominees is not essential under Ordinance VI-B. The applicant should read the Ordinance carefully.
6. When the University cancelled the Ph.D. This is not information but the applicant wanted admissions of 14 candidates cleared by an earlier an explanation, which could not be given. There DRC, reasons as to why the Dean did not call is no question of calling any applicant time and these students again for viva voce, on again.
22/09/2009 and instead acted on the earlier recommendations of the DRC in their cases, which already were annulled by the university.
7. Certified copy of the seniority list of the The seniority list of teachers received from the members of the Faculty of Law of Delhi University in 2008 had been provided university (enclosed).
Note: The PIO vide his letter dated 14/10/2010 informed the Appellant that the information had been sought from the concerned department. The PIO then supplied the said replies (as mentioned in the table) on 09/11/2010. The PIO vide his letter dated 19/11/2010 informed the Appellant that the Professor-in- Charge, Law Centre-I had informed that the information which was present on paper, is supplied under RTI. The information sought was not on record of any Committee.
First Appeal:
Incomplete information received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
"After considering the Appeal, it is noticed that the information sought by the Appellant at sl. Nos. I to 6 of the OA is not a request for information as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act, rather interpretation/clarification, which is beyond the purview of the Act. This has also been mentioned by the Dean, Faculty of Law iii his reply to the OA. Further, available information on record has been provided by the Dean, Faculty of Law in sl. no. 7 of the OA. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the Appellant."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unfair disposal of the Appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. Jay Chanda, Public Information Officer & Dy. Registrar;
The Respondent states that most of the queries of the Appellant do not seek information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission has perused the original queries and agrees with the decision of the PIO and the FAA.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
What is sought is not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 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
08 January 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)