PIO: There was a slight difference in the spelling of college name (the alphabet ‘h’ was missing in the records of AICTE) - CIC: PIO could mention in the reply that the college approved with the AICTE was ‘Vaageswari College’ & not ‘Vaageshwari College’
PIO: There was a slight difference in the spellings of college name i.e. the alphabet ‘h’ was missing in the college name available in the records of AICTE - CIC: PIO could mention in the reply that the college approved with the AICTE was ‘Vaageswari College’ & not ‘Vaageshwari College’
1. Shri More Ganesh, the appellant, sought copy of approval of Vaageshwari College for conducting diploma in engineering and management courses; copy of land documents and lease deed of the college; details of land conversion along with copy of land conversion certificate and encumbrance certificate; address of the Vaageshwari College; copy of building plan and approval of building plan; details of built up area of administrative building and institute of diploma I engineering and management courses and copy of No Objection Certificate of Vaageshwari College for the academic year 2015-16 and 2016-17 from fire safety department and pollution control board etc. through 21 points.
2. The PIO & Asstt. Director, AICTE, New Delhi transferred the RTI application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the PIO & Regional Officer, AICTE, Hyderabad on 03.11.2016. Not having received any reply from the PIO, AICTE, Hyderabad, the appellant approached the FAA. The FAA does not appear to have adjudicated in the matter. Aggrieved, the appellant made this appeal before the Commission stating that required information had not been provided to him.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of notice of hearing having been sent to him.
4. The PIO stated that the RTI application dated 06.09.2016 was addressed to the PIO, New Delhi and was received in New Delhi office. The PIO, New Delhi transferred the RTI application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 on 03.11.2016, which was received in Hyderabad office on 08.11.2016. A reply had been provided to the appellant on 21.12.2016 stating that no such college named ‘Vaageshwari College’ was listed/approved with the AICTE. The PIO stated that a college with the name ‘Vaageswari College’ was approved with AICTE, however, the appellant sought information about ‘Vaageshwari College’. There was a slight difference in the spellings of college name i.e. the alphabet ‘h’ was missing in the college name available in the records of AICTE. The then CPIO informed the appellant that no such college named ‘Vaageshwari College’ was available in AICTE records. The PIO stated that he joined the department in July, 2017 and his predecessor who provided the reply dated 21.12.2016 was transferred to Chennai office.
5. The Commission observes that the appellant sought information related to a college, however, the spellings of the name of the college mentioned in the RTI application was not same as available in AICTE records and the then CPIO replied that no such college was approved by the AICTE. Since the only difference in the spelling of college name was alphabet ‘h’, the then CPIO could mention in the reply that the college approved with the AICTE was ‘Vaageswari College’ and not ‘Vaageshwari College’. The Commission therefore directs the CPIO to provide a point wise reply to the appellant, mentioning that the name of the college approved by the AICTE within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order, keeping the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in view. The Commission also observes that the reply to the RTI application was not provided within the stipulated time period of 30 days and the FAA had not adjudicated on the first appeal. The Commission, therefore, cautions the respondent authority to be more careful in future while dealing with RTI matters and ensure timely disposal of RTI applications within the stipulated time as mandated under the RTI Act, 2005.
The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri More Ganesh, Rangareddy v. AICTE in Appeal No. CIC/AICTE/A/2017/190104+189930/MP, Date of Decision: November 30, 2017