##PAGE1##

के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग

Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:330), मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka

नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067

File No: CIC/UGCOM/A/2023/638096

Ruturaj Mulik ….अपीलकता(cid:330)/Appellant

VERSUS

बनाम

CPIO,

UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,

RTI CELL, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR

MARG, NEW DELHI -110002 ….(cid:366)ितवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing : 29.01.2026

Date of Decision : 29.01.2026

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 19.04.2023

CPIO replied on : 27.04.2023

First appeal filed on : 26.05.2023

First Appellate Authority’s order : 15.06.2023

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated :

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.04.2023 seeking the

following information:-

“I am writing this application on behalf of my friend who is studying in

University of Mumbai Law Academy (Address: Shankarravo Chavan Centre

Vidyanagari Kalina Campus Santacruz East Mumbai 400098) to seek

information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the

Page 1 of 4

1 / 5

increase of examination fees from the earlier period and why they are

asking again and again for examination fees every semester when it is

already deducted from the college fees every year. The details of the

request are mentioned as follows:

1. Kindly provide me the details of the hike in examination fees that were

charged by the college from the previous academic year.

2. Please provide me with the information on the justification that the

college has made for the increase in the examination fees.

3. Please furnish me with the details of the rules and regulations that are

guiding the college in imposing examination fees every semester.

4. Please provide me with the reason why the college is asking for

examination fees every semester when the fees for the entire academic

year are already deducted at the time of admission.

5. Please provide me with the details of the total amount of examination

fees collected by the college so far and the number of students who have

paid it.

2. The CPIO, UGC transferred the RTI application to the PIO, University of

Mumbai on 27.04.2023 under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for furnishing a

reply to the Appellant.

3. Challenging the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal

dated 26.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 15.06.2023, held that:

“It is observed that CPIO (SU), UGC has already replied to your RTI on

12.05.2023. As the subject matter of your RTI pertained to University of

Mumbai, which is a public authority in itself, the same had been

forwarded to the concerned University, under sub-section 6(3) of RTI Act,

2005 with a request to provide its reply directly to the applicant. A copy

of the UGC letter dated 27.04.2023 was also enclosed with the RTI reply

for your reference.

Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 19(6) of

the Right to information Act, 2005, the appeal made by you stands

disposed off with the aforesaid observations. An appeal against the

aforesaid decision of the Appellate Authority shall be with the Central

Information Commission within 90 days as provided under sub section (3)

of the Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.”

4. Aggrieved by the FAA’s order, Appellant is before the Commission with

the instant Second Appeal.

Page 2 of 4

2 / 5

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent.

Respondent: Ms. Usha Rawat, SO (on behalf of Ms. Rachna Verma, US/CPIO)

present in person.

5. Written submission of the CPIO is taken on record.

6. Ms. Usha Rawat, SO averred that the RTI application in question pertains

to University of Mumbai which was transferred to them under intimation to

the Appellant. Later, the University of Mumbai replied to the Appellant vide

letter dated 20.07.2023 informing him that Mumbai Law Academy is a self-

financed college which is not defined as public authority as per Section 2(h) of

the RTI Act, 2005. Further, an extract of UGC guideline