Rajiv Mathur, IC
Vide RTI dated 14.10.10, the appellant refers to writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of Mumbai High Court which gave a decision on 27.11.08 and sought the following information:
i. If the order mandatory for UGC
ii. If so, what action has been taken on exemption from NET/SLET granted by UGC on Oct 7 & 8, 2008 so as to give full effectivity to MHRD order dated 12.11.08 and High Court order dated 27.11.08
2. PIO vide letter dated 24.11.10 informed the appellant that the exemption cases approved on Oct 7 & 8, 2008 were not reopened.
3. An appeal was filed on 20.10.10 stating that the information given was not satisfactory.
4. The AA vide their order dt 28.1.11 informed the appellant that the query at serial no. i. was not seeking information, but opinion/comments which cannot be provided as per the RTI Act. As regards query no. ii, the AA upheld the reply of the PIO.
5. Not satisfied with the response, he filed the present appeal.
6. The appellant submitted that he has not received a satisfactory response to his query no. ii. The public authority submitted that they were from the Pay Scale Bureau and insofar as implementation of the High Court order dt 27.11.08 is concerned, it was the Legal Cell of the UGC which is the repository of this information.
7. The Commission finds that there is a lack of coordination within the UGC on matters pertaining to RTI as is evident from the instant case in which the CPIO, Pay Scale Bureau, UGC, should have marked this to the Legal Cell, if they were not aware of the position.
DECISION
8. In view of the above, the appeal is remanded to CPIO Legal Cell (Dr Urmila Devi), Joint Secretary, with directions that she shall provide appropriate information to the appellant as per provisions of the RTI Act, within a period of fifteen days from date of receipt of the order. The appeal is disposed of.