Central Information Commission
Amit Kumar Srivastava vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 28 January, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/ICARH/C/2019/131566+
CIC/ICARH/A/2019/652673
In the matter of:
Amit Kumar Srivastava
...Complainant/Appellant
VS
CPIO / Under Secretary(Estt.I)(Admn),
Indian Council of Agricultural Research(ICAR),
Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi - 110001
...Respondent
File No. : 131566 652673 RTI application filed on : 10/09/2018 10/09/2018 CPIO replied on : 24/10/2018 24/10/2018 First appeal filed on : 11/10/2018 31/10/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 16/01/2019 16/01/2019 Complaint/Second appeal filed : 03/07/2019 04/10/2019 on Date of Hearing : 27/01/2021 27/01/2021 Date of Decision : 27/01/2021 27/01/2021 The following were present:
Complainant/ Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranjan Tripathy, representative of the appellant, heard over phone Respondent: Mrs Neha Agarwal, acting CPIO & Under Secretary (Admn), heard over phone Information Sought:
The complainant / appellant has sought the following information with respect to the advertisements dated 14/12/2009 and 30/07/2010 issued for recruitment to the post of Legal Advisor:1
1. Provide the certified copy of the application, along with covering letter, submitted, in pursuance of circular No. 6(2)/2009-Estt.-l dated 14/12/2009, by Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, for the post of Legal Advisor.
2. Provide the day to day movement of application/covering letter from the date of its receipt.
3. Provide the certified copy of the information given by Shri Santosh Kumar Singh about his past and present employment.
4. And other related information Grounds for Complaint/Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the sought for information on some of the points claiming exemption under Sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Submissions made by Complainant/Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The representative of the appellant/complainant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and the order of the FAA as even though he was given an opportunity to inspect the relevant documents, however, when he asked for a mutual date and time to inspect the documents, no response was given by the CPIO. This shows that the CPIO and the FAA had malafidely denied to provide the desired information to him and hence penalty may be imposed on the concerned CPIO and the required information may be provided to him.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the FAA order dated 24.10.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant/complainant is aggrieved as according to him he was not allowed to inspect the records when he showed his willingness to do so vide an email dated 16.06.2019. During the hearing, the CPIO submitted that they were willing to provide inspection to the appellant and had done so vide there various letters, however, it was the appellant himself who was not interested to inspect the records as can be seen from his letter dated 03.03.2019 where he filed a complaint against the decision of the Secretary, ICAR and requested to provide the complete information to him. She further stated that in case the appellant is still interested, he can inspect the relevant records. Since the representative of the appellant submitted that he is ready to inspect the records, the CPIO is directed to provide one more opportunity of inspection to the appellant.
Considering the fact that the appellant has to travel from Hamirpur to New Delhi for the purpose of inspecting the records, so for the ease of purpose as 2 the objective of the Act is to provide timely information to the applicants at minimum cost, the appellant is given an option of authorizing someone he knows, preferably who lives in Delhi who may inspect the records on his behalf. The appellant should note that in case he deputes any representative to inspect the records on his behalf, he should give an authority letter duly signed by him to his representative who will carry the same alongwith him at the time of inspection and give the authority letter to the CPIO before the inspection is carried out.
With regard to the prayer of the appellant/complainant for imposition of penalty, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO was proper as per the provisions of the RTI Act but there was a delay of 14 days in providing a reply. However, the Commission is unable to find any malafide intention on the part of the CPIO. Hence, the question of imposing any penalty does not arise.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to offer inspection of the relevant available records to the appellant at a mutually convenient date and time, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appellant is directed to avail of the said offer within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter of inspection from the respondent authority, failing which no further opportunity will be provided to him. He is also given an option to have the inspection carried out by his authorized representative while considering the fact that the appellant has to travel a long distance to avail of the offer of inspection. The CPIO is also directed to provide the first ten pages free of cost to the appellant after which relevant photocopying charges can be demanded.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3