Central Information Commission
Raju Kumar Saha vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 4 July, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NITDP/A/2023/612290+
CIC/NITDP/C/2023/612050
Raju Kumar Saha ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
National Institute of Technology, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Durgapur, W. B.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
SA/ Complaint :
RTI : 20.12.2022 FA : 14.01.2023
08.03.2023 & 06.03.2023
CPIO : 03.01.2023 FAO : 25.01.2023 Hearing : 01.07.2024
The instant set of matters have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the same
subject matter.
Date of Decision: 03.07.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Please provide me the detailed copy of ICEBE 2020 conference published and presentation presented in the ICEBE 2020 conference (Please do not provide the abstract pdf available in the internet for ICEBE conference 2020) also kindly Page 1 of 4 assure me whether my data from my M.Tech thesis has been used or not in that ICEBE 2020 conference.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Detailed hard copy of ICEBE 2020 Conference published if any is not available with the undersigned other than Conference Abstract available over the internet.
Regarding presentation presented other than abstract PDF available in the internet, sharing of third party information the undersigned fails to disclose the same under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
No data of the applicant has been used by the undersigned in the abstract/presentation in the said conference.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 14.01.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 25.01.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint dated 08.03.2023 & 06.03.2023.
5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Debashish Mandal, CPIO and Mr. Santosh Shah, Technical officer attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that his data from his M. Tech thesis on the antibacterial mechanism of action by Mangiferin was used without acknowledgment in the ICEBE 2020 conference presentation. Despite his significant contributions as a senior researcher working on the same topic in the same lab and academic year, his name was omitted from the presentation. Appellant's RTI requests for a detailed copy of the presentation to verify if his data was used, were denied by the CPIO and FAA, who cited section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which the Appellant argues is inapplicable as the conference Page 2 of 4 presentation should be a public document. This refusal to disclose the information has led him to suspect data theft and manipulation.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia argued that the presentation requested by the appellant is already available in the public domain, but they cannot authenticate or certify the same, as the same being an intellectual property of the organization. The CPIO further claimed that the presentation requested by the appellant contains certain elements of third-party information and hence cannot be disclosed. Additionally, the CPIO asserted that the ICEBE 2020 conference presentation did not use the appellant's data as claimed, and thus, no information related to the appellant's thesis was available in the presentation. He further took the reference of Second Appeal CIC/NITDP/A/2022/666110 and stated that the current matter is identical to the said Second Appeal and has been previously disposed of by the Commission.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, notes that the reference matter mentioned by the Respondent during the hearing is not identical to the current RTI Application, hence both the matters will be treated differently. The Commission further observes that in the current RTI application an appropriate reply has been furnished by the Respondent therefore, no further intervention is required in the matter. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed, and the complaint is closed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 03.07.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 3 of 4
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
National Institute of Technology,
Assistant Registrar & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell,
Mahatma Gandhi Avenue, Durgapur, W. B.-713209
2. Raju Kumar Saha
Page 4 of 4
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)