Sudhir Bhargava DECISION
Sudhir Bhargava, Information Commissioner
1. Shri K. Kashinathan, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) on 07.04.2014 with the CPIO, Institute of Rural Management (IRMA), seeking information regarding Written Test (Online) on 'Issues of Social Concern' - February 2014, on the following points:
i. Copy of his answer sheet as ordered by Supreme Court in the UPSC case 2011. How the complainant has scored 36 marks out of 40, though all answers were correct.
ii. Why have the rules of selection not mentioned i.e. the weightage for CAT and ISC examination.
iii. Reasons for cut off marks of 35% for ISC and 37.5% for CAT. Why this was not mentioned in the admission notification as mandated by Supreme Court.
iv. Why was there a delay in the declaration the result.
v. CAT marks and ISC marks of each of the candidates short listed for Group Activity and Interview separately for OC, OBC and SC/ST.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 03.05.2014 provided para wise information to the complainant. Not satisfied with the response of the CPIO, the complainant filed a complaint dated 11.10.2014 before the Commission.
3. The matter was listed on 14.08.2015 before the Commission. However, the respondent sought adjournment for submission of written arguments. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 09.09.2015.
Hearing on 09.09.2015:
4. The complainant Shri K. Kashinathan was absent despite notice. Shri Sayid Marzook, representing the respondent was present in person.
5. The respondent submitted that IRMA is not a Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent also made a written submission in the matter which has been taken on record. The respondent requested the Commission to decide this issue in this matter.
Interim Decision:
6. The Commission observes that in order to decide whether the IRMA is a Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 or not, further documents are required for examination.
7. The respondent is directed to submit the following documents with the Commission within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(i) Annual reports of last 3 years;
(ii) IT return for last 3 years;
(iii) Details of grant received from the government/any organization/public from the inception of the institute;
(iv) Balance sheet of last 3 years;
(v) Copy of land allotment agreement; and
(vi) Allotment details, area of land, actual cost of land etc.
Hearing on 28.12.2015
8. The complainant Shri K. Kashinathan and the respondent were absent despite notice.
9. This matter is adjourned to 12.02.2016 at 1:15 pm.
Hearing on 12.02.2016:
10. Shri Sayid Marzook, representing the respondent was present in person.
Interim Decision:
11. The Commission directed the respondent to file additional documents before 09.03.2016. The case is adjourned to 16.03.2016 at 1:00 p.m.
12. Due to administrative reasons the case has further been adjourned to 21.04.2016.
Hearing on 21.04.2016:
13. The complainant Shri K. Kashinathan was absent despite notice. Shri Ashutosh Ghade, Advocate, representing the respondent was present in person.
14. The respondent sought extension of time for filing additional documents relevant for concluding the issue involved in the matter.
Interim Decision:
15. The Commission accedes to the request of the respondent and thereby, adjourns the matter to 01.07.2016 at 1.00 p.m.
16. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Hearing on 01.07.2016:
17. The complainant Shri K. Kashinathan was absent despite notice. Shri Sayid Marzook, Legal Representative representing the respondent was present in person.
18. The respondent sought extension of time for filing some more documents relevant to the issues involved in the matter.
Interim Decision:
19. The Commission accedes to the request o........