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/2008/00944/SG/0404
Appeal No. CIC /OK/A/2008/00944/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. B.K.Verma,
11/108, Rajender Nagar,
Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad,
U.P.- 201005.
Respondent 1 : Mr.Deepak Vats
Asst. Registrar & PIO,
University of Delhi,
Main Campus,
Delhi - 110007.
RTI filed on : 02/04/2008
PIO replied : 29/04/2008
First appeal filed on : 06/05/2008
First Appellate Authority order : not mentioned.
Second Appeal filed on : 20/06/2008
The appellant had asked in his RTI application regarding the University has to seek
clarification form the UGC, decisions and pending decision to the said matter.
The appellant sought following information:
The appellant had filed an application under the RTI Act, 2005 for seeking information that,
1. What is the ambiguity in the letter under reference for which the University has to
seek clarification form the UGC?
2. When was the first letter written to UGC and how many subsequent reminders have
been sent and on which dates? Copies of these letters may please be provided.
3. How many more reminders are required to be sent to the UGC before taking any
decision?
4. How many similar cases have been disposed off by your College Branch and how
many are pending for decision? Please provide details of both types of cases.
5. Is College Branch justified in clearing those cases? If yes, then what is the
justification for discriminating treatment meted meted out to me? If not, what action
has been taken to undo the wrong?
The PIO replied:
“Original application (OA) no.296 of 2008 under the RTI Act, 2005. This has been
reference to the above original application. It has been informed by the section
concerned that clarification has been sought from the UGC and same is yet to be
received”.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
Not mentioned.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. B.K.Verma
Respondent : Mr. Deepak Vats PIO
The appellant admits that the answer to query number 2 has been supplied to him.
The respondent states that query nos. 1, 3 and 5 are not ‘information as defined under the RTI
act. As to query no. 4, it is possible to give the information and this must be given. The PIO
must ensure that he gives the information within the time mandated in the law to avoid the
penal consequences of Section 20 (1).
Decision:
The appeal is partially allowed.
The respondent will supply the information to the appellant on point no. 4 before
20 December, 2008.
Decision made in the open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
4th December, 2008
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)