CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000609/13443
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000609
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Complaint:
Complainant : Mrs. Renu
C/O "Sankalp"
135, Bhattan Street,
SUNAM- 148028 Dist. Sangrur (PB)
Respondent : Mr. M. S. Ghuge
Public Information Officer & Assistant Director
All India Council for Technical Education.
07th Floor, Chandralok Building,
Janpath, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 11/03/2010
PIO replied : Not mentioned.
Complaint received on : 04/05/2010
Information sought:-
The complainant sought the following information with respect to complaint regarding Ref no:
SKLP/AICTE/ 01-10/306 dated 25/01/2018:-
1. Please indicate the daily progress made on my complaint so far i.e. when did my
application reach which office, how long did it stay with that office and what did he/she do
during that period2. Please give the names and designations of the officials who were supposed to take action
on my applications and who have not done so?3. What action would be taken against these officials for not doing their work and for causing
harassment to the public? When would that action be taken?
a. Send me details about the complaint registered against or notice sent to AIMA-
CME in action to my complaint, if not, why not yet & when it will be registered.
b. As per AICTE norms what is the action prescribed for not refund of fee by
Technical Universities; send me the conduct rules.
c. According to rules of AICTE or citizens charter in any other order, in hoe many
days should such a matter be dealt with and resolved. Please provide a copy of
these rules.d. What action will AICTE take to recover fee from ATMA- CME in my matter
provide me details.e. Provide me the details of my right to claim.
f. Provide me the certified copies of rules by which I can claim of compensation and
costs for the inconvenience/ monetary loss caused to me by the guilty officer/
department in AIMA- CMA.g. By when would my work be done now?
Ground of the Complaint:
Information not provided by PIO.
Submissions received from the PIO:
The PIO returned the application as the postal order. Demand draft for Rs. 10 send by the complainant
was blank and the name of the payee was not mentioned.
Submissions received from the Complainant:
The Complainant, Mrs Renu vide letter dated 05/04/2010 submitted before the commission that the PIO
did not replied to the complainant within 30 days which was deemed as refusal as the information has
been legally denied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Complainant: Mr. Jitender Jain representing Mrs. Renu on video conference from NIC-Sangrur Studio;
Respondent: Mr. M. S. Ghuge, Public Information Officer & Assistant Director;
The PIO had received an IPO which was blank withtou the name of the payee. Hence he had
returned the RTI application since it was not a valid RTI application. The complainant states that she did
not know in whose name the payment of the application fee ahs to be made. This is mentioned in the
central rules for the RTI Act in which it is clearly mentioned that IPOs and DDs should be made in the
name of the “Account Officer” of the Public Authority. Whereas it would be nice if PIOs could enter the
details of the Payee, the Commission cannot issue an order asking PIOs to do this. In view of this the
Commission accepts the PIO’s action of returning the RTI application as correct.
Decision:
The complaint is dismissed.
A proper RTI application had not been made with the application fee.
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
14 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SH)