CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000743/10968
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000743
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Sarita Chaudhary
71, Indira Vihar,
Delhi - 110009.
Respondent :1. Mrs. Uma Bali
Public Information Officer & Under Secretary
University Grants Commission,
Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi-02.
2. Public Information Officer
The Director,
All India Council of Technical Education,(AICTE)
Chandralok Building,
7th Floor, Janpath,
New Delhi-01.
RTI application filed on : 06/10/2009 PIO replied : 09/11/2009 First appeal filed on : 16/12/2009 First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered Notice of Hearing sent on : 22/12/2010 Hearing held on : 15/01/2011 Information Sought
Information was sought on 15 points in relation to the Unique Group of Institution (UIMT Gang Nahar,
Muradnagar, U.P.) regarding the date and time of the registration of the society, its terms and objectives,
qualifications of its Chairperson and Secretary along with a copy of their academic certificates, basis of
affiliation and subjects of the said college, basis of appointment of the Director, number of members in
the Board of U.I.M.T., whether a balance sheet is maintained by U.I.M.T., other detailed financial
information with respect to U.I.M.T. and whether any civil or criminal proceeding are pending against
U.I.M.T.
Reply of the PIO
The Appellant was informed that the information may be obtained from the AICTE. The RTI application
was forwarded to them for further action.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
Not ordered.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete information provided by the PIO and inaction on the part of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Ms. Sarita Chaudhary;
Respondent : Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, SO on behalf of Mrs. Uma Bali, Public Information Officer &
Under Secretary (UGC);
The Respondent informs the Commission all the information pertains to AICTE and hence the RTI
application has been transferred to the PIO AICTE on 09/11/2009. It appears that PIO AICTE has not sent
any information to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
PIO AICTE is directed to give the information to the Appellant before
10 February 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
AICTE within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO AICTE is guilty of not furnishing
information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as
per the requirement of the RTI Act.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.
PIO AICTE will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him
as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 10 February, 2011. He will also send the information sent to
the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the
information to the appellant.
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
15 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND)