CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000958/3677Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000958
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. Shriram Chopra,
V&PO-Thana Chhapper,
Via: Mustafabad-133 103
Distt: Yamuna Nagar (Haryana)
Respondent : Mr. C.S. Verma
Regional Officer
AICTE, North Western Regional Office, Chandigarh,
1310, Sector 42 B
Chandigarh 160036
RTI application filed on : 30.01.2009
PIO replied : 01.04.2009
First Appeal filed on : 11.03.2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on : 29.04.2009. Information Sought:
The Appellant sought information regarding Ganpati Knowledge Temple, Chhachhrauli Road,
Bilaspur Distt Yamuna Nagar (Haryanna).
The details of the information sought for are following:
1. Photocopies of the recognition granted to the following college of this campus for the year
2008-09:
i) Ganpati Institute of Technology & Mgt.(G.I.T.M.)
ii) Ganpati Institute of Education for Girls(G.I.E.G)
iii) Ganpati Business School (GBS)
iv) Shree Ganesh Polytechnic (SGP)
v) Ganpati Polytechnic for Engg.(G.P.E)
vi) Ganpati Institute of Pharmacy (G.I.P.)
2. Was recognition granted to these institutes by inspecting the buildings, infrastructures &
equipments?
3. Supply the copy of building map for these institutes with the remarks whether the said building
is as per A.I.C.TE norms or not.
4. Copy of the faculty engaged for these institutes (separate for each institute) along with
qualifications of each staff member with the remarks whether engaged faculties are in
accordance to the norms of A.I.C.T.E?
5. Copy of the salaries being transferred to the accounts of each of these faculty members.
6. Is the salary being paid to the faculties is according to the A.I.C.T.E norm?
The reply of PIO:
Point 1. Copy of letters enclosed.
Point 2. Different inspection is needed for different institution.
Point 3. May be obtained from Regional Office, Chandigarh
Point 4. May be obtained from University.
Point no.5, 6 not applicable
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
Not mentioned.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Dr. Shriram Chopra
Respondent : Ms. Rominder Randhawa PIO
The PIO had provided certain information and will provide the following information which is
missing:
1- Copy of recognition granted to Ganpati Institute of Education for girls.
2- Copy of building plans for Ganpati Institute of Education for girls & Ganpati Institute of
Pharmacy.
3- Whether recognition was granted to two Institutions in one building.
4- Copy of the list of faculty for the institutions approved by AICTE in 2008-09. If any
verification has been done whether the engaged faculty is in accordance with the norms of
AICTE a copy of this will be given. If no verification has been done this will be stated.
5- If any verification has been done about the actual payment made to faculty of these institute the
copies of the report will be given to the appellant. If no verification has been done this will be
stated.
Decision dated 12/06/2009:
The Appeal was allowed. The PIO was directed to give the information described above to the
appellant before 30 June 2009.
Brief facts leading to the show cause hearing:
The Commission received a letter dated 15/09/2009 from the Appellant stating that the information
provided till date was not in compliance with the Commission’s order. The Commission issued a
show cause notice dated 05/10/2009 directing the PIO to appear before the Commission on
05/11/2009.
Relevant facts arising during the show cause hearing on 05/11/2009:
The following persons were present:
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. C.S. Verma, deemed PIO
Mr. Verma has submitted that he has sent the information to the Appellant vide his letter dated
28/10/2009. On perusal of the information sent, the Commission finds reply to Query No. 1 and 3
unsatisfactory and directs Mr. Verma to send amended replies to the Appellant. He must state that
the Institution has not received approval (Query No.1) and that the two institutes cannot be granted
recognition in the one building (Query No.3). Amended reply must be sent to the Appellant and
the Commission before 13/11/2009.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
5 November 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)(Rnj)