CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002203/5267
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002203
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain
B - 605, Designer Park,
B-9/1A, Sector - 62, Noida,
UP - 201307.
Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal
Public Information Officer &
Addl. Dy. Registrar (Plg.)
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
Kashmere Gate, Delhi – 1100403.
RTI application filed on : 27/05/2009 PIO replied : 24/06/2009 First appeal filed on : 24/07/2009 First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered Second Appeal received on : 01/09/2009 Information Sought: i) Number of initial research proposals, for part time PhD programme which were
received during 2008-09 in the field of Management by approved research center of
GGSIPU, namely institute of Management Technology, Ghaziabad and International
Management Institute, Delhi.
ii) Details of application (during 2008-09 in the field of Management) for part time PhD
programme, whose proposals had been considered suitable for further research along
with the subject of their proposals and the name of te supervisor allotted by approved
research centers of GGSIPU viz. IMT Ghaziabad & IMI Delhi respectively.
iii) Details of applicants (during 2008-09 in the field of Management) for Part time PhD
programme, of approved research centers viz. IMT Ghaziabad and IMI Delhi
respectively whose proposals had been approved for research by GGSIPU.
iv) Reason for delay in GGSIPU approving the research proposals received during 2008-
09 for part time PhD programme, at the approved research centers viz. IMT
Ghaziabad and IMI Delhi respectively.
v) The date by which a decision will be taken by GGSIPU in approving the research
proposals received for part-time PhD programme during 2008-09, at the approved
research centers viz. IMT Ghaziabad and IMI Delhi respectively
Reply of the PIO:
The PIO replied that PhD ordinance was in review. The PIO provided the information received
from IMI, New Delhi vide letter dated 03/06/2009 (enclosed). As far as the information related
to IMT, Ghaziabad was concerned; the same was being obtained from the Academic division of
the University.
First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory reply received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
Not ordered.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory reply received from the PIO and no action taken by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal, PIO;
The PIO states that the FAA had called or a hearing on 26/08/2009 but the Appellant did not
come for the hearing. However the FAA ordered the information with IMT Ghaziabad to be
provided to the Appellant. The information has been sent to the Appellant. The PIO states that
the information of IMT Ghaziabad could not be sent earlier since it was not ready.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided.
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
28 October 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)