Central Information Commission
Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui vs University Grants Commission on 6 April, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/UGCOM/A/2019/130641
Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
University Grants Commission,
RTI Cell, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110002. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06/04/2021
Date of Decision : 06/04/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 04/02/2019
CPIO replied on : 08/03/2019
First appeal filed on : 25/03/2019
First Appellate Authority order : 14/06/2019
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24/06/2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 04.02.2019 seeking information on following three points:1
a. "Furnish the hard copy of first degree and master degree regulation 2003 and all Rules & Regulations regarding Ph. D. Courses. b. Furnish the copy of comments of statutory councils, universities, minutes of UGC meeting and all other documents regarding idea of allowing the students to pursue two degree simultaneously. c. Furnish the all publications of UGC published in 2017 to 2019 and its all subordinate offices."
The CPIO furnished a para-wise reply to the appellant on 08.03.2019. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.03.2019. FAA's order dated 14.06.2019 reiterated the reply of the CPIO for para 'a' & 'b' of the RTI application and for para 'c', the FAA provided certain additional information as under:
Para c:-"UGC publications from 2017 to 2019 are voluminous and it is not possible to provide them in the hard copies."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent: U K Baluni, US & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the rules and regulations of Ph. D. Courses has not been provided to him and as for the information sought for at para (b), only the public notice of 15.01.2016 has been provided, the relevant records prior to that has not been provided.
The CPIO submitted that the Appellant has filed a very unspecific RTI Application seeking 'all' rules and regulations; documents etc. and best efforts were made to provide whatever information was relevant and available to him. He further submitted that considering the specific contention of the Appellant during the hearing, he will ascertain the availability of additional information and provide the same to him.2
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that given the vague nature of queries in the RTI Application, the information provided by the CPIO which was also later supplemented by the FAA is appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Nonetheless, as agreed upon by the CPIO during the hearing, he is directed to provide additional information, if any, with respect to para (b) of the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 3