Shri Anil Pathak vs M/O Human Resource Development on 25 August, 2008

Central Information Commission
Shri Anil Pathak vs M/O Human Resource Development on 25 August, 2008
                        Central Information Commission
                                      *****

No.CIC/OK/A/2008/00491

Dated: 25 August 2008

Name of the Appellant : Shri Anil Pathak
A-104, Asha Apartment
In front of Ghantaghar, Ghaziabad

Name of the Public Authority : M/o Human Resource Development

Background:

Shri Anil Pathak of Ghaziabad filed an RTI-application with the Public
Information Officer, Ministry of Human Resource Development, on 6 December
2007, seeking a state-wise list of such institutions which are running without the
sanction of the University Grants Commission, All India Council for Technical
Education, National Council for Technical Education and other such recognized
bodies. The Appellant also sought a photocopy of the rules/guidelines/decisions
for action to be taken against such institutions.

2. The PIO vide his letter dated 15 January 2008 replied to the RTI-
application. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed an
appeal with the first Appellate Authority on 18 January 2008 and then
approached the Central Information Commission with a Second Appeal on 8 April
2008.

3. The Bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the
matter on 8 August 2008.

4. Shri P.R. Ramaswamy, Director & PIO, represented the Respondents.

5. The Appellant, Shri Anil Pathak, was present in person.

Decision:

6. The Commission heard both the sides and noted that the Appellant had
asked for a state-wise list of such institutions which are running without the
sanction of the University Grants Commission, All India Council for Technical
Education, National Council for Technical Education and other such recognized
bodies. The Commission finds it difficult to understand as to how this list can
be prepared. Certainly, when such an instance is brought to the notice of the
concerned authority, it becomes incumbent on them to take action against the
defaulting institution but preparing a list of unrecognized bodies is like asking
for a list of people who are driving their vehicles without a valid licence, or a
list of persons who are not declared criminals. The Commission can only ask the
Appellant to bring to the notice of the Government such institutions as are
running without proper authorization for action to be taken against them.

7. Secondly, the Appellant asked for a photocopy of the
rules/guidelines/decisions regarding action to be taken against such institutions.
In response, the Respondents stated that each regulatory body had its own set
of rules and guidelines whereby it could initiate action against unauthorized
institutions and that there is no centralized guideline for proceeding against
such bodies. The Commission accepts the submission of the Respondents and so
disposes of the case.

Sd/-

(O.P. Kejariwal)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:

Sd/-

(G. Subramanian)
Assistant Registrar

Cc:

1. Shri Anil Pathak, A-104, Asha Apartment, In front of Ghantaghar, Ghaziabad,
UP

2. The Public Information Officer, Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Department of Higher Education, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi

3. The Appellate Authority, Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Department of Higher Education, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi

4. Officer Incharge, NIC

5. Press E Group, CIC

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *