CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000551/11686
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000551
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. P.K. Parihar
294, Niti Khand -III,
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad
Uttar Pradesh
Respondent : Dr. P. V. Arya
Public Information Officer & Assistant Professor
Dyal Singh College
University of Delhi, Department of Zoology
Lodi Road, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 06/10/2009
PIO replied : 26/11/2009
First appeal filed on : 01/12/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 22/02/2010
Sl. Information Sought PIO’s reply
1. Please give a copy of the letter No F.7O-6612009-CWG-l Copy of letter ho F. 70-66!
dated 4th September 2009 from the Ministry of Sports, 2009-CWG –i dated 4th
Government of India for establishing Community sports September 2009 is enclosed ( 7
facilities in Dyal Singh College. pages)
2. Was the sports Department consulted on the issue of Refer point no. l
creating community sports facilities using Dyal Singh
College land? Please give a copy of the letter written by
your office to the department in this regard.
3. Was any Committee/s of the college consulted on the Yes. copy of note dated
proposal? If yes, give details and copies of their 09.9.2009 is enclosed.
recommendations/comments.
4. Please give a copy of the minutes of the meeting! letter Refer point-3
written by the Sports Department of the college to the
Principal! Governing Body in response to the said proposal
of developing Community Sports facilities in Dyal Singh
College.
5. Please give a copy of all papers detailing the project, Copy of letter dated 15.9.2009 is
including grounds that are to be developed, total cost, enclosed.
Government grams, terms and conditions the college has to
enter into with regard to usage of facilities by community as
well as college students & staff.
6. Please give the total area of the college that will be used for
5490 Square feet for basket ball
developing these ‘community playgrounds’. and 7200 Square feet for tennis
play ground
7. What is the period for which the college will be bound with Refer poin-5.
the terms and conditions of the project?
Page 1 of 3
8. Whether there will be any ‘income’ to the college from this Refer poin-5.
project by levying a fee for usage of these ‘community
playgrounds’? If yes, who is authorized to fix the fees?
9. Whether the college has responded (or even sought Refer poin-5.
clarifications) to the Ministry on the stated proposal? If yes,
please give a copy of the letter / letters written by the college
in this regard.
10 Do issues that fall under the purview of a department of the Refer University ordinance.
. college also come under the purview of the Staff Council of
the college?
First Appeal:
The PIO has not provided any meaningful information.
Order of the FAA:
Not mentioned.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Complete information was not provided. FAA had also not taken any action.
Submissions received from the First Appellate Authority on 04/03/2010:
“1. Dr. P.K.Parihar filed a RTI dated 06. 0.2009 pertaining to information regarding sports
facilities to be created with funds from Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India.
Reply to this RTI was sought on 09.10.2009 and the reply was received from the College office on
03.12.2009 and same was communicated to the applicant on 04.12.2009. The delay was on account of
official concerned being on leave for some time and fifteen days autumn break in first half of October,
2009.
2. Dr. P.K.Parihar filed an application to the appellate authority (Principal) dated 01.12.2009
regarding non supply of the information to his RTI. Since the reply to his RTI was communicated on
04.12.2009 he was not called for the hearing.
3- Dr. P.K.Parihar on receipt of the reply never pointed out any query / discrepancy pertaining to
the reply of his RTI to PlO / Appellate Authority and instead preferred to flie direct complaint against
PlO /Appellate Authority on 06.12.2009 to CIC and copy of the complaint was forwarded to PlO /
Appellate Authority vide his letter dated 22.02.20 10. However, all enclosure as desired by him in the
complaint are communicated to him vide college letter no. DSC / ADMN/ RH NO.73/ II dated
04.03.2010 which were inadvertently not enclosed with the reply sent to him on 04.12.2009 though
reference to the same was made in the covering letter.
4- It is submitted that college authority have always tried their level best to respond to RTI” in a
time bound manner and wherever the applicant are not satisfied with reply, due care is taken to call
them for hearing before the appellate authority and documents are placed before them for the
inspection.
5- In view of the above facts it is requested that necessary action be taken to dispose of his
complaint.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Dr. P. V. Arya, Public Information Officer & Assistant Professor;
The PIO states that some papers have been inadvertently left out when the original reply was
sent to the appellant. He states that this information and the MOU had been sent to the Appellant on
04/03/2010. The PIO states that he has seen the points raised by the Appellant in the second appeal
and has provided all the information which had been missed earlier. The PIO is warned to ensure that
the complete information is provided to the Appellant within 30 days.
Page 2 of 3
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the record appears to have 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
26 March 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SM)
Page 3 of 3