CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001976/5035
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001976
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Alok Verma
S/o Mr. Kedari Lal Verma
3/66, Sector – B, Priyardarshini Colony,
Sitapur Road, Lucknow,
Uttarpradesh – 226020.
Respondent : Dr. Rominder Randhawa
Public Information Officer &
Dy. Director
All India Council for Technical Education
7th Floor, Chander Lok Building, Janpath,
New Delhi – 110001.
RTI application filed on : 29/06/2009 PIO replied : 15/07/2009 First appeal filed on : 08/07/2009 First Appellate Authority order : Not Ordered Second Appeal received on : 18/08/2009 Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought following information regarding his application dated 23/06/209 to the
Dy. Director/AICTE against Saroj Institute of Technology and Management, Lucknow:
i) Details and daily progress report of the said application.
ii) Details of the session and course for which the investigation was sent.
iii) Whether the enquiry was conducted only for B. Pharma. Course of session 2003-04.
If yes, reason for not conducting enquiry for rest of the courses.
iv) Whether the enquiry was sent to only Mukul Verma. Details of action of enquiry of
rest of the students.
v) Reason for not taking suo moto action on unreasonable fee charged to the students
vi) Reason for not taking action earlier.
vii) Whether the said institute fulfills standards laid down by AICTE.
viii) Number of times when an enquiry was conducted against the said institute by the
AICTE after its recognition.
ix) Whether the laboratories in the said institute fulfills all the criteria.
x) Whether the number of teaching staff was according to the standards. Details of
process of enquiry and period.
Reply of the PIO:
The PIO informed the Appellant that his IPO of Rs.10/- was wrongly addressed to PIO, AICTE
and asked the Appellant to deposit application fee of Rs.10/- in favour of Member Secretary,
AICTE, New Delhi.
First Appeal:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
Not Ordered.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-receipt of complete information from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Alok Verma
Respondent : Absent
The Appellant has sent an IPO in the wrong name and the PIO has returned it. The IPO should be
sent in the name of the Accounts Officer of the Public Authority as per the rules.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
A proper RTI application with the accompanying application fee had not been made.
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
06 October 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(GJ)