O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.01.2025 seeking information on the following points:
1. "From the commencement of the UGC Regulation on curbing the menace of ragging in higher educational institutions, 2009, till 13 Jan 2025, how many times has the UGC invoked regulation 9.4 of the UGC Regulation on curbing the menace of ragging in higher educational institutions and penalised the institution for failing to comply by the regulation or in any circumstances penalised the universities, if the answer is yes, please provide the list of institutions and the action taken against them
Page 1 of 3
1 / 4
1
2. How many anti-ragging complaints have been registered by the anti-ragging wing of UGC?
3. Out of all the registered cases of anti-ragging, how many cases did the complainant prefer an appeal?"
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.02.2025 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Sought Information is available on UGC website www.antiragging.in and www.ugc.gov.in"
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.02.2025. The FAA vide order dated 18.02.2025 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Ajay K Joshi, US & CPIO attended the hearing in person.
6. The Appellant argued that the information that he has requested is not available on the website.
7. The Respondent submitted that the reply provided to the instant RTI Application is as per the availability of the information, which is what is placed on the averred website. Further, to facilitate the Appellant, the CPIO clarified regulation 9.4 has not been invoked so far hence no such data will be available to provide.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply provided by the CPIO does not bear with any infirmity per se. However, in view of the Appellant's contentions during the hearing and the fact that the CPIO has not indicated unavailability of any of the information in their reply as opposed to what was explained during the hearing, the Page 2 of 3
2 / 4
2
CPIO is directed to send a revised reply to the Appellant in a point-wise manner specifying the website hyperlink, where the information sought for is available and indicating the unavailability of information against the relevant point. The said revised reply of the CPIO shall be provided to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
9. 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: 17.06.2025
Authenticated true copy
O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल)
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO University Grants Commission, CPIO, RTI Cell, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi -110002
2 Gaurav Meena Page 3 of 3 3 / 4
3
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 41 / 14
4