Come alone for hearing,PU asks RTI applicant

The appeal filed against the public information officer-cum-deputy registrar (General) sought details of expenditure incurred by the university on the Syndicate and Senate meetings held in the last four years. The PIO had refused to part with the information on July 6 on grounds that it does not come under the purview of RTI Act.

The RTI Act,however,makes it mandatory for public authorities to provide information until it is exempted from disclosure under Sections 8 or 9 of the Act.

While denying information,a PIO is duty-bound to disclose with reasonable justifications the section/s under which data is being refused.

“Deputy Registrar (General) Bikram Singh refused to take cognizance of the RTI application,saying the queries in the application dated June 24 do not fall under the ambit of RTI Act,” said Dr Singla,the applicant.

The hearing in the case was initially fixed on July 26,which was subsequently postponed to August 11 on account of administrative reasons.

According to the RTI Act and rules,both the appellant as well as the respondents are entitled to take support of others during hearings before the appellate authorities or information commissions.

In the present case,the university deputy registrar was accompanied by a large number of people but the appellant was allegedly asked to remain present alone in the PU Syndicate Room where the hearing was scheduled to be conducted.

“Aggrieved by the dilly-dallying tactics being adopted by the university and today’s decision of the PU registrar,I have decided to file a second appeal before the Central Information Commission,New Delhi,against the functional anarchy of Panjab University that intended to undermine the letter and spirit of the RTI Act,”added Dr Singla.

In an earlier instance,Dr Singla had been allowed to bring along a person during a hearing on April 27 only after a lot of argument and discussion. Singla during that hearing had challenged the PIO to show the 46,000 pages related to the ongoing construction work on campus for which an exorbitant amount of Rs 92,000 had been demanded by the university PIO.