THE WORTHY VICE CHANCELLOR

University of Engineering & Technology

Lahore

SUBJECT: Application for Internal Review under section 12 of the Punjab

Transparency and Right to Information Act 2013

Respectfully Sheweth,

1. That the Petitioner herein sought certain information, as described

below, under the provisions of the Punjab Transparency and Right to
Information Act 2013 (the Act) from the Information Officer (IO) of the
University of Engineering & Technology Lahore (the UET) which request
was illegally and unreasonably declined via communication dated 17-
07-2017 by the IO. (the Impugned Order). (A copy of the Punjab
Transparency and Right to Information Act 2013 is Annex-A herewith)

BREIF FACTS

a. That under the established practice of the UET and the governing Rules,
Orders and Statutes, projects initiated from outside and sent for
execution to a professional engineer/consultant in his capacity ‘as an
employee of the UET’ cannot be undertaken without the permission of
the head of the Department or worthy VC and a certain amount of the
project fee needs to be credited to the University accounts.

b. That the Petitioner herein came to know that the current Dean of Civil
Engineering Department had not only accepted a project from the CEO
of the Urban Unit without permission of the Chairman of the Civil
Engineering Department but had executed the same project in secrecy
and earned a huge amount without crediting the share of university as
per Rules. This act of the Dean amounted to grave violation of Rules and
an act of misconduct in addition to being an act of corruption and
corrupt practices.

c. In view of above, in order to take further step in this matter, the

following information was sought under the provisions of the Act from
the IO:
 i. Names of three selected teachers (core team of Dean) from civil
engineering department, who were involved in this commercial
assignment under the headship of Dean Civil along with the basis of
their selection
ii. The documentary evidence that the UET share was deposited in the
Treasurer account, in compliance with the notification no. No. Regu-
III/67/15/131 dated 13-04-2015 with the date of deposit of the UET
share
iii. Details and documentary evidence of distribution of share among the
Dean Civil and three selected teachers of civil engineering department
involved in the assignment
iv. The details and documentary evidence of payment deposited in the
two Labs. of civil engineering department against the work/ testing
carried out in these labs
v. Signed copy of the report with its covering letter of the Dean Civil,
which was submitted to The Urban Unit
vi. The rules under which, the Dean Civil in his official capacity is directly
preparing & sending the quotations for commercial assignments along
with directly picking the teachers of his own choice for these
assignments without bringing it in the notice of Chairman Civil
(Copy of Application No. Ref: AP/2017/95 dated 03-07-2017 by the
Petitioner herein to the IO is Annex-B herewith)

d. That the aforesaid Application was received by the IO on the same date
(03-07-2017) and forwarded to the office of the Dean Civil Engineering
Department. Instead of the Dean, the PA of the Dean replied to the IO
vide letter dated 17-07-2017 refusing to provide the information on the
ground that:

The information requested is fully covered under section 13 (d) of the Punjab
Transparency and Right to Information Act 2013 (protection of legitimate
commercial interests of the University) and cannot be provided to the
Applicant Dr Riaz Ahmad Goraya)

(The Reply dated 17-07-2017 written to the IO by PA to the Dean Civil

Engineering dated 17-07-17 is Annex-C herewith)
e. That the IO failed to exercise his discretion as required by clauses (a)
and (b) of the Act and orally informed the Petitioner of the outcome of
the Application dated 03-07-2017. On the insistence of the Petitioner,
the impugned Order was provided to the Petitioner on 11 th of August
2017; however the Impugned Order was back-dated to 17-07-2017.
(The Impugned Order dated 17-07-2017 provided to the Petitioner on
11-08-2017 is Annexure-D herewith)

f. That the Letter of the PA to the Dean Civil Engineering written to the IO
(Annex-C) and the Impugned Order (Annex-D) are grossly illegal, mala
fide and liable to be set aside inter alia on the following

GROUNDS/REASONS

1. The purpose of making an application by the Petitioner under the

provisions of the Act was not to pry into the commercial interests of
the UET but rather to safeguard such interests. The Petitioner as a
member of the faculty of _____________ is associated with the UET
since _____________. The welfare, growth and reputation of the
UET is as much dear to the heart of the Petitioner as his own welfare
and reputation. The Petitioner only desired to unearth a financial
irregularity and bring it to the notice of the university authorities.
Indeed the manner in which the project was accepted and dealt with
by the Dean Civil Engineering as mentioned in para 1 (a) above, was
in itself against the commercial interests of the University.
2. It is submitted that the legitimate commercial interest of the
‘university’ does not mean the commercial interest of an ‘employee’
of the university. As mentioned above, the Dean Civil Engineering
accepted and executed the project in violation of prescribed Rules
and did not credit the prescribed share of university to university
accounts. Such underhand dealing must be strictly dealt with and
the culprit must be brought into open and punished so that no other
employee will dare in the future to repeat such conduct.
3. That the provision quoted by the PA ibid i.e. section 13 (d) is mala
fide as it relates to commercial interest of ‘university’ and not that
of the ‘Dean civil engineering and some of his favorites’. In this view,
the Dean has acted ulteriorly in a bid to defeat the purpose of law.
 4. In any case, it was Dean under the provisions of the Act who was
required to reply to the IO and not his PA. The Dean therefore has
committed an offence in terms of section 16 of the Act and is liable
to be prosecuted and punished as prescribed:

16. Otherwise obstructs access to information which is the

subject of an application, internal review or complaint,
with the intention of preventing its disclosure under this
Act, commits an offence punishable with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to two years or with fine which
shall not be less than ten thousand rupees or with both.
5. That the IO himself has acted mechanically and accepted the excuse
of the PA without applying his mind on the reasonableness of the
excuse and the nature of the information required. The Impugned
Order therefore is liable to be set aside.
6. That the IO sat on the Impugned Order for more than three weeks
and failed to provide the Petitioner the Impugned Order within the
prescribed time of fourteen days from the date of the Application,
i.e. 03-07-2014. IO therefore is liable to be dealt with under the
provisions of section 15 of the Act.

PRAYER
In view of above submissions it is most humbly prayed that the Impugned
Order dated 17-07-2017 (Annex-D) be set aside and the Dean Civil Engineering
Department and the IO be directed to furnish the Petitioner the requisite
information as mentioned in the Application dated 03-07-2017 (Annexure-B)
within seven days of the decision of the Internal Review; failing which
proceedings under section 15 and 16 of the Act may be directed to be initiated
against the IO and the Dean Civil Engineering Department.

Dr.___________
Address___________
Dated:__________