Response to the decision of First Appellate Authority

RTI/IITK/0713

May 17, 2013

Acting Registrar,

Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur

Kanpur-208016

                      Sub: David Thomas Report

 Ref: My letter No. RTI/IITK/0213 dated Feb.08, 2013 and CPIO reply in Para 1 David Thomas Report in letter No. PIO/25-2013/IITK-113 dated Mar 11, 2013 and your letter No. IITK/PIO/AA/2013/09 dt May 07, 2013.

Dear Dr. Sachan,

Thank you very much for your timely response to my Appeal against the RTI/IITK/0513 dated April 03, 2013. The response from the CPIO is summarized in the Table below which has been upheld by you vide your above referred letter.

The information provided remains unsatisfactory and incomplete for the following reasons.

1. It appears that in a public funded organization like IITK, proper procedure has not been followed in appointing Mr. David Thomas against an informal request and impropriety in making payments to him- without the terms of reference, the scope of work, duration, payment conditions and the categorization of the report submitted like classified as confidential etc.

2. It appears that while making the payment of a total of Rs.3,42,620 to Mr. Thomasunder different headings no Finance and Audit Rules have been followed.

3. Classifying a document or a report submitted to IITK as confidential, as an afterthought, is technically wrong and not providing the report as a part of information under this pretext is a violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.

4. Acceptance of the Report, with or without editing, is not a pre-condition for supplying information under RTI Act. I have several reports from IITK too which were not accepted/ rejected

5. Exchange of direct communication/ correspondence under the RTI Act cannot be replaced by assurances of providing information through publication on the Internet, that too without fixing the time limit. It has to be provided within the prescribed 30 days. Therefore, an assurance of publication of Mr. Thomas Report on the internet without fixing a time limit is not a prerogative of IITK or any other institution under the Act.

6. If terming documents as ‘Confidential’ or ‘Not accepted as yet’ is accepted as alibi for not providing the information under RTI Act then there will be no meaning of the existence of this Act because every authority will use his discretion of refusing information on these grounds. 

It is simply for the love of my Alma Mater that I request you afresh to please provide me with the clarifications asked for in the aforesaid paras and a copy of the original DavidThomas Report so that I do not have to approach the constitutional authorities, to get the information/ document, adding to the uncalled for financial expenses by IITK.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

VN Sharma 

Copy to: Director, Dy. Director, Dean (R&A).