O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) “Information and a list of the AICTE approved institutes that have updated minutes of meetings on their websites from the Satara district of Maharashtra state.

(ii) Information and links to the minutes of meetings of the BOG and BOM of the AICTE approved institutes from June 2022 to April 2023, from the Satara district of Maharashtra State.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:- (i) “The information on AICTE approved institutions is already available in public domain and may be accessed at Councils website on www.aicte-india.org - statistics - AICTE Approved Universities or Institutes - select year - select state - submit - search Institute name (ii) Information and links to the minutes of meetings of the BOG and BOM of the AICTE approved institutes is not available with this office.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.06.2023. The FAA vide order dated 07.06.2023 observed as under: “I, as Appellate Authority, found that WRO PIO, Regulation Bureau AICTE, has already provided you the appropriate, Information about AICTE approved Institutions, Polytechnics, Institutions Deemed-to-be Universities, Universities, etc approved courses, level of Courses along with sanctioned intake, program, run by them is available on AICTE web portal "www.aicte-india.org". Information and links to the minutes of meeting of the BOG and BOM of the AICTE approved institutes are not available with this office, the desired information comes under the purview of concerned Institute as such information is not collected by the Council. I, endorse the same and dispose off your above cited appeal accordingly. However, you are advised to seek the information from the concerned college/affiliating authority as the subject matter is not related to AICTE.”

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, 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, Asstt. Director & CPIO attended the hearing in person.

6. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that considering the vague nature of the information sought for in the RTI Application and in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case, the CPIO’s reply stating the availability and unavailability of information, as applicable, warrants no intervention.

8. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

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

Sd/- (Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम)

Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु(cid:17))

Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन(cid:18)ल एस एस िछकारा ($रटायड(cid:18))

Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)

011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO All India Council for Technical Education, CPIO, RTI Cell, Head Office: Delhi, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070

2. Dilip Aldar Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:- Nil Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)