CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001793/4821
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001793
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Dr. Ms. Tanzeem Fatima
Qayyam Complex, Iqra Colony,
Dohrrah, Aligarh-202002.
Respondent : Mr. Mohd. Naeem
Section Officer & CPIO
Aligarh Muslim University
Proctor Office
Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh-202002.
RTI application filed on : 13/03/2009
PIO replied : 09/04/2009
First appeal filed on : 25/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 11/06/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 24/07/2009
Sr. No. Information sought PIO's reply
1. The instructions issued by the Your letter/complaint addressed to SHO
Proctor on Appellant’s said Police Station Kuwarsi, Aligarh received in
letter. this office vide R. No. 320/Proc. Dated
21/01/2007 was forwarded by the then
Proctor duly remarked “FIR be lodged” on
the same day vide d. No. 167/Proc. Dated
22/1/2007 and was received in the Police
Station on the same day i.e. 22/01/2007.
2. The daily progress made on The Progress/ action as taken by the Proctor
Appellant’s said letter so far on your letter have already been briefed in
.i.e. when did it reach which para No. 1 above.
office/functionary.
3. The names and designations of Prof. Akhlaq Ahmad, Proctor, AMU has to
the officers/ functionaries who take action on your letter which he has taken
were supposed to take action on the same day.
on Appellant’s letter and who
have not done so.
4. The action under rules The action for neglecting duties if proved, is
prescribed to be taken against initiated according to the University rules.
officers/ functionaries for not
doing their work, i.e.
neglecting their duties, if
conclusively shown.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Misleading/ incomplete information received from the PIO.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
“All the relevant information desired by you were provided by CPIO Proctor’s Office and
nothing was concealed as per record.
In view of the above facts your appeal is hereby dismissed. It may further be informed that as
desired by you in point No. 1 and 2 of your appeal, your application has been sent to PIO/ S.S.P.
Aligarh and CPIO. DE Section/ Councils/Admin-T for providing information to you, vide D.
No. 45/Proc. Dated 04/06/2009.”
The CPIO/Section Officer and CPIO, Departmental Enquiries Section vide their letters dated
10/06/2009 and 03/07/2009 respectively have stated that information with regard to point no. 4 is
not with their office.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. Mohd. Naeem (PIO)
The PIO has given the information within 30 days. Regarding the Complaint of the Appellant, it
has been forwarded to SSP, Aligarh and on the Appellant’s representation in the first appeal that
the further progress of her complaint from the police authorities should be informed to her. The
PIO transferred to the PIO SSP, Aligarh on 04/06/2009. The PIO SSP has also provided
information to the Appellant on 27/07/2009.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information has been provided 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
16 September, 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.) (AK)