CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /OK/A/2008/00815//SG/0651
Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2008/00815/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Dr. Tariq Islam,
Reader Department of Philosophy,
Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh, U.P. – 202002.
Respondent 1 : Mohd. Muqim,
CPIO / Chairman Dept. of Philosophy,
Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)
Aligarh, U.P. – 202002.
RTI filed on : 19/03/2008 PIO replied : 10/04/2008 First appeal filed on : 28/04/2008 First Appellate Authority order : not mentioned Second Appeal filed on : 15/05/2008
The appellant had asked regarding pending case against the employees of the
University from 2000 till date in the Supreme Court or High Court separately.
Detail of required information:-
S. No. Information Sought. The PIO replied.
1. Separately with regard to the above mentioned Aluminum framed fiber glass
works in the Department of Philosophy. notice board.
The expense incurred on each.
2. The Head of Account from which the expense is Show case for display of l k
met out for each. books.
3. The amount utilized so far from the said Head of New carpet laid out in the
Account and the remaining amount in the said Head Seminar Library.
of Account. For each of these items, you
have to pay Rs. 10/- but you
have deposited only Rs. 10/-
now you are required to pay
Rs.30/- in addition. For these
items. Moreover you have to
pay Rs. 2/- for the copy of
the minutes of the purchase
committee.
As son as the required fee is
paid to the university, the
information would be mailed
to you.
4. Certified copies of the bills of payment.
5. Certified copy of the minutes of the Purchase
Committee wherein it was decided to undertake the
above mentioned works in the Department.
6. The constitution of the Purchase Committee of the
Department.
7. In case the matter was not decided by the Purchase
Committee the facts and reasons for undertaking the
said works, the officer / functionary who decided on
the matter and the rule position under which the said
decision was taken by her / him, to whom the matter
/ decision has been reported and from whom the
permission for the works was obtained.
8. The comparative statement on the bases of which
the work was allotted to the particular contractor for
the said works in the Department.
9. The total amount spent. Aluminum framed which
board.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
Not mentioned.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Mohd. Muqim
The respondent has wrongly asked the appellant to pay Rs. 10 as fee for each of the
items for which information was sought by the appellant. There is no proviso in the
rules for such a demand. The PIO is warned not to ask for charges not sanctioned by
the rules.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will provide the information free of cost to the appellant before
25 December, 2008.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
19th December, 2008
(For any further correspondence please mention the decision number given above,
for quick disposal.)
(BK)