Public authorities under the RTI Act are not required to furnish opinions or inferences, strictly adhering to the defined parameters of 'information'.

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. Ref.: 1. Letter F.No 2-1/2024-TS.V dated January 15, 2024 received by IIMA from Section Officer (Mgt), Deptt of Higher Education with complaints CVC 32214.2023 dated 17.10.2023 and 21942/2023 dated 20.07.2023

2. Letter F.No 16-14/2024-TS.V sent to PIO IIMA (Yourself) on 08.03.204 from Section Officer (Mgt), Deptt of Higher Education to furnish information under the RTI Act to the RTI Application CVCOM/R/E/23/00819 dated 23.12.2023 enclosed therein with this letter The information towards my RTI CVCOM/R/E/2023/00819 – forwarded to you vide above letter Ref. 2 – has not been received as per the RTI Act in the timeframe of one month (received by you on 08.03.2024).

Hence I am submitting this RTI as a gentle reminder to please provide me the sought information under the RTI Act. For your convenience, information sought in the said RTI is again annexed herewith.

In addition, please also furnish the following information under the RTI Act about my CVC Complaint 21942/2023 forwarded to IIMA on 15.01.2024, vide above letter Ref. 1:

A. If any efforts have/had been made by the CVO to find out the truth about the various irregularities disclosed in the complaint?

B. If yes, a copy of the efforts made to investigate the various irregularities disclosed.

C. Whether any investigation independent of IIM Ahmedabad (against which the irregularities were disclosed) was conducted as requested in the CVC Complaint?

D. If yes, by which independent organization?

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“Response 1: This is reference to letter No. F.No.|6-1412024-TS.V (dated 8th March) and C.21011/03/2024-Vig by (DOHED-MOE). Also, regarding RTI Applications dated l1 January 2024 and 17th January 2024 respectively forwarded Uy OOUEO via email on March 11,2024. Please note that a reply to the same has been sent dated March 20,2024. A copy of the same has been attached for your reference.

Response A: As per circular No. 25112121 dated24.l2.202l of CVC, Chapter II, para 2.1(f), "Complaint should be specific with adequate evidence".

In the vigilance Manual 2021,this is mentioned in Chapter 3,para3.11.2(c) "Therefore, it is expected from the complainants to go through the complaint Handling Policy of the Commission, which is available on its website www-.cvc.g- ov.in, so the only those complaints are lodge which are specific and where adequate evidence is enclosed so that it can indicate substantive vigilance angle prima-facie."

The chief Vigilance Officer will investigate complaints submitted as per process with adequate evidence.

Here, as there is no evidence submitted with the complaint for CVO to investigate, the complaint was forwarded to the concerned officer seeking explanation in the matter. And accordingly, the complaint was closed with an appropriate response on March 14,2024.

Response B: Not applicable.

Response C: Not applicable please refer to our response in point A. Response D: Not applicable.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.07.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 05.08.2024 observed as under: -

“Response to query 1, A, B, C, D & I: As observed by CVO, there is no requirement for further investigation as due procedures have been followed for the tender and award of contract of the Construction Project to PSP Projects in March 2019.

The tender for the project was published twice. The tender for the single projects consisting of multiple works was first published in Se