के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग१,मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2024/610526 Sai Krishna … अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: University Grants C ommission, New Delhi …ঋितवादीगण/Respondents Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:

 With reference to a letter sended by AISU, via Email (aisu4india@gmail.com)

dated 15/11/2023 addressed to Hon’ble Chairman, University Grants Commission sent on the following email id: (cm.ugc@nic.in, dinesh*****@gov.in, and Prashant********@gmail.com,) (copy of letter is attached) With reference to the above kindly provide me the following information-

1. Provide the status of letter dated 15/11/2023 sended to Honble Chairman, University Grants Commission on following email id (cm.ugc@nic.in, dinesh********@gov.in, and Prashant*******@gmail.com,) (copy of letter is attached)

2. Certified copy of the note sheet indicating notings by various officials and decision of competent authority on representation or feedback obtained with respect to the issues raised in stated letter/representation.

3. Provide para-wise remarks, if any, on the above stated letter/representation.

4. If above stated representation/letter forwarded to other Authority/Ministry, then kindly provide certified copy of forwarding letter

2. The CPIO transferred the RTI application vide letter dated 11.12.2023.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.02.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 28.02.2024 directed the CPIO to provide the information.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 10.03.2024.

5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the respondent Pooja, Deputy Secretary, attended the hearing in-person.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that upon receipt of the hearing notice, the RTI application was again forwarded to the PES University for its comments on the representation made by the appellant to the UGC, the status of which has been sought through the present RTI application. This was reiterated in the respondent’s written submissions dated 25.04.2025, which have been duly placed on record. The respondent further stated that several reminders had been sent to the University requesting their response, but no reply has been received to date. On being queried by the Commission as to whether the University concerned is a private Institution, the respondent responded affirmatively.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the respondent has failed to duly dispose of the RTI application. Consequently, the then CPIO, Shri Dinesh Chand, through a letter dated 11.12.2023, as well as the current CPIO, through a letter dated 23.04.2025, had both erroneously transferred the RTI application to the said University, which is not a public authority and, therefore, does not fall within the purview of the RTI Act. Instead, the CPIO could have forwarded the RTI application to the Private University Division of the UGC, which exercises regulatory control over private universities, and the RTI could have been addressed accordingly. In light of the above, the Commission now directs the CPIO, who was present during the hearing, to obtain the required information from the concerned Division of UGC by following the appropriate procedure and to provide a reply t