CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110067.
Tel.: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /OK/C/2008/00931/SG/2374
Complaint No. CIC/OK /C/2008/00931/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the complaint:
Appellant : Prof. Shabahat Husain,
Department of Library and Information Science,
Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh. U.P.
Respondent : Mr. S. Mustafa Zaidi,
PIO/Chairman
Dep of Library and Information Science,
A.M.U, Alighar.
RTI application filed on : 27/02/2008 PIO replied : 26/03/2008 First appeal filed on: 01.04.2008 First Appellate Authority order : No reply Complaint filed on : 26/09/2008
The Complainant had filed an application seeking following information:
S.No Information sought The PIO’s reply
1. Five systems worth Rs. The systems have been installed.
2,68,000/- were purchased by the
department vide order No. 146
CPO dated 18.05.06. You are
requested to please let me know
as to why these systems have not
yet been installed?
2. Details of the payment of the The question is redundant as purchase was not
offline UPS installed to supply made.
power to INTERNET switch in
Computer Lab. during
November 2006. (Receipt plus
head of account).
3. Under what provisions of the The rules followed for the constitution of
University rules, you constituted purchase committee of the Department were the
purchase committee of the same that where followed during the tenure of
department consisting of a Professor Shabahat Hussain as Chairman when
Lecturer in place of professor? Lecturer/s replaced Reader on many occasions.
4. Whether due notice was give to It may kindly be clarified which “meeting of
Dr. Naushad Ali, Reader about purchase committee” is being referred to.
the meeting of purchase
committee?
Being dissatisfied/aggrieved by the reply of the PIO the compliant herein filed an appeal
before the First Appellate Authority before the “Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences” AMU.
Alighar” on 01.04.2008.
The First Appellate Authority Order:
Not replied.
Present Complaint:
Dissatisfied/aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority the complainant herein
has filed this complainant under section 18(1) of the RTI Act. According to the appellant the
reply of the PIO is false and misleading. Appellant has made this complaint on the following
count.
1. Why the chairman did not inspect the computer if they are installed?
2. Why the details of the payment of the UPS are not being provided or if not purchase,
form where it has come?
3. As per the composition of Purchase Committee, a senior professor is also a member,
but a lecturer, under what provisions of rule, replaced him.
4. Another member was shown on leave, was given due notice of the meeting?
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. S. Mustafa Zaidi PIO
The respondent states that the information was provided to the applicant completely. The
appellant has raised fresh queries in his appeal. The contention of the PIO appears to be
correct.
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
March 23, 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(BK)