Shri S.M. Mehta vs President’S Secretariat on 20 November, 2008

                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00580 dated 27.6.2007
                             Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19


Appellant        -          Shri S.M. Mehta
Respondent           -      President's Secretariat


Facts

:

By an application of 8.3.07 Shri S. M. Mehta of Paschim Vihar New Delhi
made an application to the CPIO President’s Secretariat seeking the following
information:

“1.(a) Kindly provide complete administrative and procedural
details which are followed/ practiced by the Hon’ble
President of India in his capacity as Visitor, University of
Delhi for deciding/ disposing off representation under Statute
6(2)(ix) of the Delhi University Act, 1922 sent by an
aggrieved University employee through the proper channel
procedure.

(b) In an event the President of India/ Visitor, University of Delhi
comes to know lately, on being informed by the aggrieved
through a copy of his representation and reminders about
the original statutory representation not reached him. Kindly
inform the administrative steps which the President shall
need initiate to retrieve the original addressed to him from
the concerned University authorities who despite having
received the representation had failed to deliver/forward the
same through the proper channel procedure for his
consideration and decision in the matter concerned.

2. Apropos the information by you to the queries at 1(a) and (b)
above:

(a) Kindly clarify to affirm that responsibility of the President of
India as Visitor, University of Delhi towards the aggrieved S.
M. Mehta, in the matter of his representation dated
10.11.2004 under statute 6(2)(ix) of the Delhi University Act,
1922 followed by reminders dated 26.12.2005 and
21.2.2006 did not end with actions undertaken by the
President’s Secretariat to forward the reminders/copy of the
aforementioned representation to the Department of
Secondary & Higher Education, New Delhi vide U.O. Note
No. 28(3)/2006-CA(II) dated 20.01.2006 and 2.3.2006
respectively.

1

(b) Kindly clarify to inform that the President/ Visitor had initiated
thorough probe and necessary enquiry against the Delhi
University authorities for misusing their positions and
violation of the Service/ Conduct Rules besides Statue
6(2)(ix) of the Delhi University Act 1922 as was requested by
the applicant in his reminder dated 21.2.2006 to His
Excellency Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam.

(c) Kindly clarify to confirm that the above mentioned statutory
representation dated 10.11.2004 from S. M. Mehta,
Technical Officer, Department of Physics & Astrophysics
D.U. is still pending with the President of India as Visitor,
University of Delhi for consideration and decision by him as
is mandatory under Statute 6(2)(ix) of the Delhi University
Act 1922.

3.(a) Kindly inform about action the President’s Secretariat has
initiated ever further with the Department of Secondary &
Higher Education, New Delhi a follow up of their U. O. Note
No. 28(3)/2006-CA(II) dated 20.1.2006 and 2.3.2006 in the
matter of S. M. Mehta’s representation of 10.11.2004 and
reminders dated 26.12.2005 and 21.2.2006 respectively to
the President/ Visitor, University of Delhi.

(b) And if no action as desired to know vide para “(a)
above, has ever been initiated as part of the
responsibili8ty by the President/ Visitor towards the
aggrieved, the reasons justified thereof for having
acted so be explained and informed, accordingly.

4. Kindly inform and provide with copy of reply from the
Department of secondary & Higher Education, New Delhi
which the President’s Secretariat might have received in
response to their UO Note dated 20.1.2006 and 2.3.2006
stated above.

5. Kindly clarify to contradict that the President’s
Secretariat was not duty bound or under any obligation to
inform the complainant/ aggrieved about the status and fate
of his representations/ reminders dated 26.12.2005 and
21.2.2006 as per existing administrative norms, ethics and
rules until asked to divulge information under the RTI Act,
2005 vide application dated 17.11.2006.

6. Kindly clarify and inform that the representation of
S.M. Mehta dated 10.11.2004 addressed to the President of
India under Statute 6(2)(ix) of the Delhi University Act, 1922
was to be considered ,decided or disposed off as directed by

2
the President in capacity of the Visitor, University of Delhi,
only, or the same was to be dealt with the disposed off by
the department of Secondary & Higher Education ,New Delhi
to whom it was forwarded by the President’s Secretariat or
by the authorities of the University of Delhi who failed in their
duties to forward the same to the addressee through the
intermittent proper channel authorities of the Pro-Chancellor
and Chancellor, University of Delhi for the request
accordingly made by the applicant.

7. Kindly oblige the applicant with copies of personal
and specific remarks/comments/ observations/ opinion of
DR. A.P. J. Kalam, the Hon’ble President of India/ Visitor,
University of Delhi on the queries raised vide this application
and as shall deem on the matters/ contents of his statutory
representation dated 10.11.2004/ reminders, to him.’

To this he received a response on 19.3.07 from Shri Nitin Wakankar, CPIO,
President’s Sectt. as follows:

“Shri S. M. Mehta is informed that his representations dated
26.12.05 and 21.2.06 were forwarded to the Department of
Secondary and Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource
Development on 21.1.06 and 2.3.06 respectively. Follow up action
taken by the Ministry of Human Resource Development is not
known since no related communications have been received from
the said Ministry with respect to the afore mentioned
representations. It is further clarified that the provisions contained
under Statue 6(2) (ix) of Statutes of the University of Delhi are silent
on the role of the Visitor and therefore, you may like to liaise in the
directly with the Ministry of Human Resource Development being
the nodal Ministry in the matter.”

Appellant Shri Mehta then moved a first appeal before the Appellate
Authority, President’s Sectt. On 4.4.07 in which he protested that the information
sought by him “was completely denied” and concluded with the following prayer:

“You are humbly requested to kindly provide necessary and
complete information to all the points raised in the form it was
originally sought vide enclosed application dated 8.3.2007 and
demanded again for being part of this appeal for the discrepancies
explained above and as per sub-section (9) of Section 7 of the RTI
Act 2005.”

Upon this the F.A.A. passed an order as follows:

3

“In this connection the appellant is hereby informed that his appeal
dated 8.3.07 was examined by the undersigned and the order
passed vide No. A.27011/43/06-RTIA (AA) dated 4th April, 2007
was sent to him on the same date. However, there was a typing
mistake in the first paragraph of the said order saying that. “this
order disposes of the appeal dated 4.3.07 received from Shri S. M.
Mehta…”. Here, the date may please be read as 8.307 (instead of
4.3.’07).”

The present appeal is quite clearly dated 4.4.07. Whereas no appeal of
4.3.07 has been cited by appellant or indeed of 8.3.07(instead of 4.3.07). The
present appeal is against information received from the CPIO Shri Wakankar on
19.3.07. Evidently, since the appeal is against information supplied on 19.3.07
the order in appeal is without application of mind and totally irrelevant. The
appeal was heard on 20.11.08. The following are present:

Appellant
Shri S. M. Mehta.
Shri Krishan Lal.

Respondent
Shri Nitin Wakankar, Deputy Press Secretary, former CPIO.

DECISION NOTICE

st
Because the 1 appellate authority has not addressed the questions of
appellant, which are of direct concern to her public authority and because
appellant has pleaded no ground for making a direct complaint to us u/s 18, or
apprehension of malafide on the part of the Secretariat, the Commission has
decided to remand this appeal to Mrs. Rasika Chaube, Internal Financial Advisor
st
and 1 appellate authority, President’s Secretariat, who is directed to dispose of
the appeal within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this decision, under
intimation to Shri PK Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central Information Commission.

If not satisfied with the information so provided, appellant Shri S. M. Mehta will be
nd
free to move a fresh 2 appeal before us as per Sec 19 (3)

4
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
20.11.2008

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.

(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
20.11.2008

5