CENTRALINFORMATIONCOMMISSION

Room No.-307, 2nd Floor, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan

Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
Website : cic.gov.in
Telephone No.: +91-11-26105682

File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000777

Appellant: Shri Rajasekaran M, Namakkal

Public Authority: UGC, New Delhi
Date of Hearing: 12.12.2013
Date of decision: 12.12.2013

Heard today, dated 12.12.2013 through video conferencing.

Appellant not present.

Public Authority is represented by Ms SB Gupta, Under Secretary/PIO(Autonomous

Colleges) and Ms Inderjit Kaur, SO, UGC New Delhi, and Dr G.Srinivas, Jt Secretary,
RO UGC Hyderabad/FAA.

FACTS

Vide RTI dt 15.4.13, appellant had sought information on 8 points relating to

M.Kumarasamy College of Engineering.

2 PIO UGC New Delhi vide letter dt 29.4.13, transferred the RTI to PIO UGC
office, Hyderabad and one copy of the RTI was transferred to the Principal of the
college vide UGC letter dt 16.5.13 for providing a response.

PIO UGC New Delhi provided a response vide letters dt 19.6.13 and 24.6.13.

3. An appeal was filed on 12.6.13.

4. Submissions made by public authority were heard. FAA UGC Hyderabad

submitted that he had retransferred the RTI back to the UGC HQ vide letter dt
17.7.13 as it pertained to UGC, New Delhi, after providing a response in respect of
qeury no.8 to the appellant vide letter dt 11.7.13. PIO (Autonomous Colleges) vide
letter dt 24.6.13, informed appellant that he should deposit Rs 82 as photocopying
charges, in respect of query 6, 7 and 8. PIO is unable to say as to whether any
response has been provided to the appellant in respect of queries 1-5. In the
absence of the appellant, his views could not be ascertained.

DECISION

5. The Commission finds that the first appeal filed by the appellant on 12.6.13
was transferred to Dr G.Srinivas, Jt Secretary, Hyderabad on 18.7.13. However, no
response has been provided to the first appeal.
1
6. PIO (Autonomous Colleges) has demanded a payment of Rs 82 as
photocopying charges after a lapse of over two months since filing of the RTI, which
is against the provisions of the RTI Act. PIO is directed to provide information to the
appellant free of cost within ten days from date of receipt of the order.

7. We find that no response seems to have been provided to the appellant in

respect of query no.1-5.

8. In the past, we have brought it to the notice of Chairman, UGC, the fact that
provisions of the RTI Act are not being sincerely implemented by the UGC. In the
instant case, the RTI has been tossed back and forth between UGC, New Delhi and
UGC RO Hyderabad, with neither of the offices making any effort in providing a
response. As a result, though the RTI was filed on 15.4.13, PIO (Autonomous
Colleges) has failed to provide information on the grounds that appellant should have
deposited Rs 82 and no information seems to have been provided in respect of
queries 1-5.

9. A copy of this order be marked to Chairman UGC, Prof Ved Prakash, with
directions to ensure that a proper mechanism is evolved in UGC for implementation
of the RTI Act and the individuals appearing before the Commission are able to
present a complete picture rather than confining themselves to their respective
sections. We also direct the Chairman u/s 19(8) of the RTI Act to ensure that proper
training is provided to the staff allocated the work of RTI so that the provisions of the
Act are implemented both in letter and spirit.

The appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-
(Rajiv Mathur)
Central Information Commissioner

2
Authenticated true copy forwarded to:

The CPIO
University Grants Commission
Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi -110002.

The First Appellate Authority

University Grants Commission
South Eastern Regional Office, APSFC
Building(4th Floor)5-9-194,PB No.152
Chirag Ali Lane Hyederabad -500 001.

Prof. Ved Prakash,

Chairman,
3
University Grants Commission
Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi -110002.

Shri Rajasekaran M.
27/8 East Street,PO Pothanur,
Dist. Namakkal, Tamilnadu

(Raghubir Singh)
Deputy Registrar
.12.2013