PIO: (Extra) Rs. 10/- has been sent back to the applicant as there is no provision to accept additional fee in advance - CIC: Although the information provided by the PIO is appropriate, the delay caused in providing the same is viewed adversely
1 Jul, 2024
O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.08.2022 seeking information on the following points:
1. “The dates on which the meetings of Standing Committee on Anomaly Cases were held after 15.02.2019 till date.
2. The date of the meeting of the Standing Committee on Anomaly Cases in which the issue of enhancement of age of retirement etc of Instructors in Stenography & typewriting was taken up for consideration.
3. The final decision of enhancement of age of retirement etc. of Instructors in Stenography & Typewriting as taken by the UGC or any other decision taken in this regard.
4. Please supply a copy of the orders issued regarding (iii) above. .
5. Please supply a list of the institutions to which the decision regarding (iii) above has been conveyed.”
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.08.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
“With reference to your application dated 23.08.2022 received in RIA cell on 26.08.2022, I would like to inform you that your RTI application has been forward and Rs. 10/- has been sent back to you as there is no provision to accept additional fee in advance.”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.10.2022. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.
4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the desired information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.11.2022.
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Vasdev Talreja, US & CPIO attended the hearing in person.
6. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant was eventually provided with the available information vide their letter dated 25.11.2022 and the FAA had also decided the First Appeal on 29.11.2022 upholding the reply of 25.11.2022. It was further submitted that the said communications were sent via post as well as email.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that although the information provided by the CPIO is appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act, the delay caused in providing the same is viewed adversely. The CPIO is hereby cautioned to ensure that time stipulations prescribed under the RTI Act are strictly adhered to in the future.
8. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
Information Commissioner
Citation: Satish Kumar Bhatia v. UCG, CIC/UGCOM/A/2022/153732; Date of Decision: 18.03.2024