SASINDRA KUMAR v. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)

(iv) Photocopy of the attendance sheet for the hall no: TF-277/E on 08/07/2022 forenoon session

(v) Whether the any punitive action taken against the student (YES/NO).." etc.

2. The CPIO forwarded the RTI Application vide letter dated 27.02.2023 to the concerned college stating as under:

"The information sought by the applicant pertains to I.F.E.T College of Engineering, Villupuram. Hence, the application is forwarded herewith for providing the requested information directly to the applicant with a copy endorsed to this office."

3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any further reply or information in the matter, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 23.03.2023 directed the concerned college to re-look into the matter and provide a reply to the Appellant within 10 days of receipt.

4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the desired information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, John Hongray, Assistant Director & Rep. of CPIO, AICTE HQ attended the hearing in person along with Dr. Mahendran, Principal, IFET College, Villupuram present through video conference.

6. The Respondent submitted that he was deputed by the concerned CPIO/SRO at the AICTE HQ who is now entrusted with the RTI matters of the concerned regional office, however, he pleads lack of knowledge of the case details at the moment but assures of checking the records for providing the available information. Further, the Rep. of the CPIO animatedly took down notes during the hearing as though the hearing was convened to enlighten the Rep. of CPIO about the facts of the case. Upon a query from the Commission regarding the provision of the RTI Act under which the CPIO, AICTE had "forwarded" the RTI Application to the averred college, which was prima-facie not even a public authority and not even amenable to the jurisdiction of Central Govt. within the mandate of Page 2 of 4

2 / 756

2

the RTI Act; the Rep. of CPIO counter questioned the representative present from the college as to whether they are a private entity and are amenable to the RTI Act or not. Nonetheless, the Rep of CPIO sought to plead that as such the information sought for by the Appellant appears to be third party information.

7. The Commission is aghast at the conduct of the Rep. of CPIO as well as the omission of the concerned CPIO in failing to ensure proper representation of the case before the bench, for rather causing a mockery of the hearing proceedings by merely marking their attendance. Further, it is baffling to note that the Rep. of CPIO was not even aware of the footing of the averred college vis-à-vis AICTE's regulatory role or vis-à-vis the mandate of the RTI Act. It was incumbent upon the present CPIO to have correlated these facts before sending a clueless representative to attend the hearing. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the then CPIO, AICTE, SRO bothered to apply their mind at the time of replying to the RTI Application in terms of stating if such information can be accessed by AICTE from the concerned college under any law for the time being in force as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act or to state the fact that the information sought for entails third party's personal information thus absolving them of bearing the onus for any acts of omission and commission by their CPIO(s) designated at the erstwhile Regional Offices.

8. Having observed as above, the present CPIO is hereby directed to send a proper written explanation to the Commission stating the reasons for the sheer callousness with which the instant matter has been dealt with by AICTE till date, thus causing a gross violation of the letter and spirit of the RTI Act in as much as the Appellant was misled into assuming that the private college was going to provide him with the information, directly. The submissions of the CPIO shall also state the trajectory of dates relating to the alteration in the administration of the AICTE Regional Offices along with supporting documents. The said written submissions of the CPIO along with supporting documents shall reach the Commission within 15 days of the receipt of this order. Further, the CPIO is now directed to provide a proper point-wise reply to the instant RTI Application incorporating the available information or such

Page 3 of 4

3 / 756

3

information that can be accessed from the said college subject to the exemptions of Section 8 of the RTI Act. The said direction shall be complied with by the CPIO free of cost within 15 days of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

9. The role of I.F.E.T. College of Engineering, Villupuram as a Respondent in the instant matter is dispensed with as the entity has been erroneously arrayed as a party without having any such jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act.

10. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/- (Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु) िदनांक/Date: 16.08.2024

Authenticated true copy

Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनल एस एस िछकारा ($रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)

011-26180514

Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO All India Council for Technical Education, S.R.O., Shastri Bhawan, 26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600006

2. CPIO

All India Council For Technical Education G5P3+8PH, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, Delhi 110070

3. Principal I.F.E.T. College of Engineering, Principal & CPIO, Gengarampalayam, Villupuram-605108

4. Sasindra Kumar Page 4 of 4

4 / 567

4

Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 15 / 1756

5

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 61 / 716

6

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 17 / 17

7