CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/003261/6737
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003261
Appellant : Mr. Vinay Kumar,
House No. 24, Type -III,
Sant Longowal Institute of
Engineering and Technology,
VPO-Longowal, Distt. Sangrur,
Punjab- 148106
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Sant Longowal Institute of
Engineering and Technology,
Longowal- 148106, Punjab
RTI application filed on : 24/08/2009
PIO replied : 05/10/2009
First Appeal filed on : 12/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal Received on : 24/12/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : ...............
Hearing Held on : 08/02/2010
Information sought:
Appellant sought following information regarding the purchase of software CA ITM
Antivirus supplied by the M/S Info Tech Delhi:
1. Copy of request for purchase of software along with technical specifications.
2. Copies of tenders received for purchase of software.
3. Copy of complete bill processed with technical inspection report.
4. a. Date of supply of software.
b. Date of inspection of software.
c. Date of commission of installation of software.
d. Date of completion of installation of software
e. Date of payment and payment terms.
5. Present status of computers on which, this software is loaded.
PIO's Reply:
Copy not enclosed.
Application was forwarded to PIO/ Store Purchase Officer vide letter date 03/09/2009.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Incomplete information in respect of Point no. 5. Appellant sought status of all computers
(greater than 700).
Page 1 of 2
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not mentioned.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Information not provided on Point no. 5
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Vinay Kumar
Respondent: Dr. HK Sharma, PIO
The Appellant states that he has received information on the first four queries but has not
received complete information on Query No. 5. The PIO states that they do not maintain
record of the number of computers on which the anti virus software is installed. They
have given the Appellant photocopies various sections where the software has been
installed. The Appellant contends that the record given to him shows installation on 52
computers whereas he alleges that the Institute has purchased 1200 licenses. He will have
to pursue this matter at an appropriate forum. But the PIO claims that he has given all
available records relating to the installation of the software.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
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
8 February 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj
Page 2 of 2