CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel.: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01268/SG/00179
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/011268
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Dixit
Flat No. 608 (DDA)
Pocket – GH-5&7
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi – 110087.
Respondent 1 : Shri Pankaj Agarwal
Addl. Dy. Registrar (Plg.) & PIO
Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
RTI filed on : 18/03/2008 PIO replied : 21/04/2008 First appeal filed on : 19/05/2008 First Appellate Authority order : 19/06/2008 Second Appeal filed on : 01/07/2008 Detail of information required:-
The appellant had asked about seeking information on 17 points regarding the Guru Govind Singh
Indraprastha University.
The PIO replied:
The PIO had provided all information to the Appellant had been asked by the PIO, but the appellant
had not been satisfied to the PIO replied (Copy attached).
The Appellate Authority ordered:
“It has been alleged by the appellant that the information given by the PIO is evasive and incomplete.
1. It has been observed that an application, having same Queries and mentioned in the above
reffered appeal has been received by the University seeking information under RTI Act 2005
from Sh. Pankaj Dixit.
2. The reply to the above referred application under RTI Act 2005 has been prepared by the
University which consisted of additional 8 pages as annexure.
3. Vide University’s Letter No. F-5(104) / Misc /RTI/PUDRP/2007/306/8349 dated 13.06.2008.
Sh. Pankaj Dixit was requested to deposit an additional fee of Rs. 16/- (Rupees Sixteen only)
as prescribed in the RTI Act.2005.
4. Sh. Pankaj Dixit has not deposited the requisite additional fee for providing the repl to his
application under RTI Act 2005.
5. The PIO will supply the required information as soon as the additional fee is deposited by the
applicant.
The appeal is disposed off.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Shri Pankaj Agarwal
The appellant’s primary dissatisfaction was with what he calls different answers provided at
different times. The PIO explains that at different times the numbers of migration, admissions
etc. is different and that at the time of providing the information, the figures obtaining then
have been provided. The explanation seems reasonable and therefore the appellant’s
contention of wrong information does not appear to be borne out.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
7th November, 2008