In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/WB/A/2010/000557AD
Date of Hearing : December 27, 2010
Date of Decision : December 27, 2010
The Applicant was not present during the hearing
Parties:
Applicant
Dr. H.P. Sangwan
WZ249 A
3rd floor, Inderpuri
New Delhi 110012
Respondent(s)
University of Delhi
Office of the Asstt. Registrar (Info)
Main Campus
Delhi - 110 007.
Represented by : Shri Jay Chandra (PIO & Dy. Registrar)
Shri Shankar Kr. Paul (PA to CPIO)
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/WB/A/2010/000557AD
Background
1. The RTI application dated 18.2.2010 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, University of Delhi
seeking information against 5 points and several sub points including date and reference of the EC
resolution vide which the post of Principal Information Officer has been created, its functions and
responsibilities, list of Principal Information Officers, List of the Public Information Officers etc. The
PIO replied on 19.3.10 providing point wise information. He also enclosed the relevant inputs
received from various other divisions of the University. Not satisfied with this response the Applicant
filed his first appeal on 15.4.10 commenting on the information received and seeking further
clarification on the same. The Appellate Authority replied on 18.5.10 stating that the PIO has already
furnished all the available information. He further stated that the Appellant was required to deposit
Rs.24/ for 12 pages of information which he did not do so and also upheld the PIO’s decision.
Decision
2. The Commission noted that in an appeal no.CIC/SG/A/2009/001894 the Commission had decided
that there is no merit in the Appellant’s complaint that some of the papers of the University gave the
designation as Principal Information Officer instead of Public Information Officer and that this
nomenclature is wrong. In the light of this decision, the Commission holds that the information being
sought by the Appellant in his RTI application dated 18.2.10 against points 1 (A) & 1(B) are not
tenable. With regard to point 1(C) & 1(D) the information has been provided. As for point II(A)(ii)
information against Prof. Babu could not be provided as there is no reappointment of Prof. Babu and
hence the points this query are not relevant. With regard to point (III) the Commission directs the
PIO to provide a copy of the order by which Prof. C.R. Babu has been designated as the PIO. As for
point (IV) the Respondent submitted that information as sought in point (IV) (i) & (ii) are not available
on record. Information against IV (iii), (iv) (v) has been provided and against (vi) the Respondent
submitted that the required ordinance is on the website. The Commission directs the PIO to provide
a copy of the specific reference of Ordinance if available, and if not to inform the Appellant
accordingly. Information against V(i) has been provided and against V(ii) reasons are not available in
the records. Information against V(iii), if available, may be provided. If not, the Appellant to be
informed accordingly.
4. The information to be provided by 10 February, 2011.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Dr. H.P. Sangwan
WZ249 A
3rd floor, Inderpuri
New Delhi 110012
2. The Public Information Officer
University of Delhi
Office of the Asstt. Registrar
Main Campus
Delhi – 110 007.
3. The Appellate Authority
University of Delhi
Office of the Asstt. Registrar
Main Campus
Delhi – 110 007.
4. Officer Incharge, NIC.