Central Information Commission
Krishan Murari Lal Pathak vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 3 September, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
कें द्रीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुननरका, नई ददल्ली- 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/ICARH/A/2019/603064
In the matter of:
Prof Krishan Murari Lal Pathak
... Appellant
VS
1.Under Secretary(Vigilance) & CPIO,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research(ICAR),
Krishi Bhawan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi-110001
&
2. Assistant Director General(AH) /CPIO,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Bhawan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi-110001
&
3. CEO, Agri - Innovate India Ltd.
G - 2, Block A, NASC Complex, DPS Marg,
New Delhi-110012
...Respondents
RTI application filed on : 12/10/2018 CPIO replied on : 15/11/2018 First appeal filed on : 06/12/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 27/12/2018 Second Appeal dated : 15/02/2019 Date of Hearing : 02/09/2020 Date of Decision : 02/09/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over phone
Respondent: Shri Ravi Dobriyal, Under Secretary (Vigilance), Dr. Ashok Kumar, ADG and CPIO, Smt. Driti Madaan, Company Secretary, Agri - Innovate India Ltd and CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Certified copy of the proposal submitted by Dr. B. Pattnaik, Director, PD-
FMD to Animal Science Division(SMD) for commercialization of FMD LPBE packaging technology.
2. Certified copy of the proposal submitted by Dr. B. Pattnaik, Director, PD- FMD to Agri-Innovate India Pvt ltd, New Delhi for transfer of FMD LPBE packaging technology to M/S Arsh Biotech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi.
3. Certified copy of noting on file/action taken report of Animal Science Division on the proposal of Dr. B. Pattnaik related to commercialization of FMD LPBE packaging technology to M/s Arsh Biotech Pvt. Ltd
4. And other related information (total 24 points).
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that as per their report a vigilance case is going on against the appellant and Shri Ravi Dobriyal, the CPIO submitted that in respect of points no. 1 to 11 of the RTI application they are not the custodian. The Commission admonished the CPIOs stating that nobody has taken any onus or responsibility to ensure that a point-wise reply on points 1-11 is furnished to the applicant. No point in a RTI application should be left unattended.
The appellant also contended that he is not asking for sharing information related to whatever enquiry is going on, he is asking for information related to the duties he performed when he was DDG. The file is with vigilance section, and he further alleged that one Mr Sinha has misguided the ICAR, and information sought is important for him as denial of information is affecting his career and social status.
The CPIO, ICAR, Vigilance Section submitted that an appropriate reply on points no. 12 to 24 was provided to the appellant on 16.11.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that on points no. 12-24, a point wise reply was given to the appellant which is proper. With regard to points no. 1-11, the RTI application was transferred to Agri - Innovate India Ltd for providing the relevant information to the appellant. However, Agri - Innovate India Ltd vide letter dated 16.11.2018 transfererd the RTI application to the CPIO, Vigilance Division, ICAR while stating that the concerned files containing original note portion, correspondence were submitted to them on 03.05.2017 and hence the desired information is available with the Vigilance Division, ICAR. Thereafter, the CPIO, Vigilance Division, ICAR vide his letter dated 17.12.2018 forwarded all the relevant files back to the Agri - Innovate India Ltd so that a reply could be furnished to the appellant.
On a query to the CPIO, Agri - Innovate India Ltd as to whether a final reply was given to the appellant for points no. 1-11, the CPIO submitted that the information sought is not related to them.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO Vigilance is directed to provide an apt reply as per the RTI Act in respect of points no. 1 to 11 of the RTI application, to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The CPIO Vigilance can take assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from the concerned record holders and deemed PIOs in complying with the order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna(वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानितसत्यानितप्रनत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26182594 / ददनांक/ Date