Central Information Commission
S Haja Najeemudeen vs Central Marine Fisheries Research ... on 13 August, 2018
Central Information Commission
Room No.413, New CIC Building, Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
website-cic.gov.in
Case No. CIC/CMFRI/A/2017/110413/MP & CIC/CMFRI/A/2017/190145/MP
Appellant. : Shri S. Haja Najeemudden, Cochin
Public Authority : Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute,
Kochi.
Date of Hearing : 05th December, 2017.
Date of Decision : 11th December, 2017.
Present
Appellant : Present through VC.
Respondent :Dr. N.K. Sanil, FAA & Shri S.K. Ram
Dasan, Asstt. AO through VC.
RTI application : 29.09.2016
CPIO's reply : 27.10.2016
First Appeal : 31.10.2016
FAA's order : 15.11.2016
Second Appeal : 10.02.2017
Information Commissioner : Manjula Prasher
ORDER
Case No. CIC/CMFRI/A/2017/110413/MP 1.1 The appellant, Shri S. Haja Najeemudeen submitted RTI application before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute(CMFRI), Kochi seeking details of visit of DG, Secretary and DDG(Fy) of ICAR to CMFRI, Cochin and Munner during April 2016, whether ICAR issued any letter asking CMFRI to make any or all arrangements for the function at CMFRI; whether ICAR fixed any expenditure limit for the said arrangement or ICAR allotted fund for meeting the expenditure; the details of Committees had been constituted in CMFRI for making the arrangement at CMFRI; details of each and every programme attended/participated/chaired by the DG, Secretary and DDG at CMFRI; the decisions taken by the CMFRI in connection with the functions/meetings in which the said dignitaries attended during their visit; details of catering service hired; details of family members and their stay; copies of photographs in each programme; sought inspection of the Register having stay details of visitors in respect of Hostel functioning at CMFRI; inspection of file dealing with sanctioning of HRA to scientists who came for training and stayed in the ladies hostel/students hostel etc. through seventeen points.
11.2. The CPIO informed the appellant that information sought at points 1 to 15 of the RTI application was under the control of ICAR and the same had been communicated to him by the ICAR vide letter No. 13(1)(1)/2012-IU/834 dated 07.10.2016 and he denied information on points 16 and 17 being personal information of third party. Dissatisfied with the decision of the CPIO the appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority (FAA). The FAA concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on the grounds of misleading and incorrect information having been provided by the respondent authority.
1.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he sought information on seventeen points but had not been provided and that whenever he sought any information he was told that it was not available. The CPIO stated that information on points 1 to 15 was available with the ICAR, instead of transferring these points under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the CPIO, ICAR for providing information. The FAA also upheld the decision of the CPIO. He then took up the matter with ICAR, who informed that the CMFRI did not transfer these points and moreover the information was not available with ICAR.
1.5. Having considered the submissions of both the parties, the Commission holds that the CPIO did not transfer points 1 to 15 u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, and this displayed carelessness in handling of the RTI application. The Commission warns him to be careful in future. Moreover, most of the information sought by the appellant should be available with the CMFRI. The Commission therefore directs the CPIO to revisit the RTI application and send a point-wise reply as per available record, while keeping the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in view within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/CMFRI/A/2017/190145/MP RTI application : 07.10.2016 CPIO's reply : No reply. First Appeal : 11.11.2016 FAA's order : 17.11.2016 Second Appeal : 02.12.2016
2.1 The appellant, Shri S. Haja Najeemudeen submitted RTI application before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), Kochi seeking to know whether EFC/IMC approved the purchase of RAS equipment in respect of Mamdepa Centre for Rs. 142 lakhs;
2whether proposal of EFC of the said RAS equipment was made in EFC while proposing/preparing EFC; action taken on his letters dated 31.8.2016 and 27.07.2016 addressed to RTI officials of CMFRI; copy of the approved tour programme for July, 2016 submitted on 18.09.2016; number of persons stayed at Farmers' Guest House, CMFRI etc. through five points.
2.2 Not having received any response from the CPIO, the appellant approached the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA while quoting the Commission's decision dated 17.12.2007 in case No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00967, denied the information on the grounds that the RTI application should be on a single subject.
2.3 Thereafter the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on the grounds of willful, deliberate hiding of the information.
2.4 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that the CPIO did not reply to his RTI application and the FAA denied the information on the grounds that the appellant had sought information on multiple issues. The respondents stated that the appellant sought for information on four different subjects with no connection with each other through his RTI application in question. They invited the Commission's attention to the other RTI application of the same appellant that was dated 29.09.2016 where the appellant had south voluminous information and added that the appellant had made uncalled allegations against Shri Mohanan, CPIO in his second appeal filed before the Commission.
2.5 Having considered the submissions of both the parties, the Commission observes that the CPIO had not provided any reply to the appellant and the FAA also simply denied the information on the grounds that the appellant had sought information on multiple issues. The Commission therefore directs the CPIO to provide to the appellant (i) whether the purchase of RAS equipment by CMFRI had the EFC approval and if so, provide date of approval with reference to points 1 and 2; (ii) action taken on his two letters with reference to point 3; (iii) copy of appellant's tour programme of July, 2016; (iv) The number of persons stayed in Farmers' Guest house, rate of lunch/dinner, if available with reference to point 5. The CPIO will comply with the directions of the Commission within twenty five days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The Commission advises the appellant to desist from making unsubstantiated allegations against the officials of CMFRI. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
3
Date of hearing : 27.07.2018
Compliance order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Smt. Sunita Arya,
Senior Accounts and Finance Officer
cum CPIO, Delhi.
Shri K.Ramdasan,
Assistant Accounts Officer, cum APIO,
Kochi.
On perusal of record it was seen the following order was passed in the present case on 11.12.2017. The relevant paras are extracted below:
Case No. CIC/CMFRI/A/2017/110413/MP "The Commission therefore directs the CPIO to revisit the RTI application and send a point-wise reply as per available record, while keeping the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in view within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of."
Case No. CIC/CMFRI/A/2017/190145/MP "The Commission therefore directs the CPIO to provide to the appellant (i) whether the purchase of RAS equipment by CMFRI had the EFC approval and if so, provide date of approval with reference to points 1 and 2; (ii) action taken on his two letters with reference to point 3; (iii) copy of appellant's tour programme of July, 2016; (iv) The number of persons stayed in Farmers' Guest house, rate of lunch/dinner, if available with reference to point 5. The CPIO will comply with the directions of the Commission within twenty five days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The Commission advises the appellant to desist from making unsubstantiated allegations against the officials of CMFRI. The appeal is disposed of."
Decision :
Case No. CIC/CMFRI/A/2017/110413/MP On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that the reply provided vide letter dated 23.12.2017 is just, proper and comprehensive, interference of the Commission is not called for.4
With the above observation, the non- compliance petition is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Case No. CIC/CMFRI/A/2017/190145/MP On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that the reply provided vide letter dated 09.01.2017 on point no. 1 is just, proper and comprehensive, interference of the Commission is not called for. However on point no. 2 proper reply was not provided. It should have been provided to the appellant i.e copy of the EFC (Expenditure Finance Committee) memo.
The respondent PIO, Kochi during the hearing submitted that relevant records were not available. He was directed either to provide information or to provide clear reply affirming the non availability of the relevant record in this regard.
On point no. 3, it was noted by the Commission that the reply provided to the appellant was not proper i.e. copy of the action taken should be provided. On point no. 4 of the said RTI application, it was observed by the Commission that the reply provided was not proper and a copy of the approved tour programme should be provided to the appellant.
On point no. 5 due reply was already provided.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case in regard to some of the points contained in the said RTI application, the present respondent CPIO, Kochi is directed to provide revised point wise reply as discussed during the hearing complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record on point nos. 2,3 and 4 in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order. For this purpose, the concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.5
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K. Talapatra) Deputy Registrar 6