Central Information Commission
Mr.Ashok Kumar vs Ministry Of Environment And Forests on 6 July, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001053
Date of Hearing : July 6, 2011
Date of Decision : July 6, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Dr.Ashok Kumar, Scientist D
Division of Genetics & Tree Propogation
Forest Research Instiute
Dehradun 248195
Applicant was present.
Respondent(s)
Indian Council of Forestry Res. & Education (ICFRE)
P.O. New Forest
Dehradun - 248006.
Represented by : Shri R S Pali, ICFRE, Dehradun
Shri S Senthil Kumar, ICFRE, Dehradun.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001053
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application dated 22.12.2010 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, ICFRE, Dehradun seeking information related to ACRs including copies of various documents relating to supply of ACRs, rules applicable for dealing with cases where the reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities have delayed supply of ACRs to employees, lists of employees who have received ACRs etc . The PIO, replied on 20.1.11 informing the Applicant that the information is voluminous and that it will take time to provide the information.
Not satisfied with the reply the Applicant filed his first appeal on 21.1.11 seeking the information once again.
Then filed second appeal dated 23.3.11 with the CIC requesting for the information.
Decision
2. During the hearing the Commission reviewed the information provided point wise and decided as given below.
point (1):
the DOPT's Circular with regard to disclosure of ACRs may be furnished.
points 4 and 7:
copies of documents already provided against these points may be attested by the PIO. The Appellant is advised to approach the PIO with the information so that the PIO can do the needful. point 2:
the Applicant may be allowed to inspect the relevant file and compile the information by himself since the information sought is voluminous in nature and compiling the same will disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. point 5 :
information to be furnished to the Appellant Last point:
To be transferred to the CPIO , DOPT so that the information can be provided directly to the Applicant by the CPIO.
All information to be provided by 7th August 2011.
3. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc
1. Dr.Ashok Kumar, Scientist D Division of Genetics & Tree Propogation Forest Research Instiute Dehradun 248195
2. The Public Information Officer Indian Council of Forestry Res. & Education (ICFRE) P.O. New Forest Dehradun - 248006.
3. The Appellate Authority Indian Council of Forestry Res. & Education (ICFRE) P.O. New Forest Dehradun - 248006.
4. Officer incharge NIC.
In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, giving (1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO's reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellant Authority, (4) copy of the Commission's decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.