Central Information Commission
Radhey Krishna Batham vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 21 April, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Complaint No. CIC/SH/C/2016/000167/MP
Complaint No. CIC/SH/C/2016/000122/MP
Complaint No. CIC/SH/C/2016/000210/MP
Complainant : Shri Radhey Krishna Batham, Jhansi
Public Authority : M/o Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare, New
Delhi
Date of Hearing : April 19, 2017
Date of Decision : April 21, 2017
Present:
Complainant : Not Present
Respondent : Dr. Mukesh Srivastava, Registrar, Rani Laxmi Bai
Central Agricultural University, Shri Balbir Singh,
A.S.O., Department of Agricultural Research &
Education, Dr. K.L. Khurana, Pr. Sc. (EQR),
Agricultural Education Division
RTI application : 04.11.2015
CPIO's reply : 12.11.2015
First appeal : 24.01.2016
FAA's order : NA
Complaint : 16.03.2016
ORDER
1. Complaint No. CIC/SH/C/2016/000167/MP 1.1 Shri Radhey Krishna Batham, the complainant, sought information regarding Dr. Arvind Kumar, first Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Rani Laxmi Bai (RLB) Central Agricultural University, Jhansi, who had also served as Deputy Director General (Education) in ICAR, Delhi from 2009-14. The appellant sought the date on which Dr. Kumar resigned/retired from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR); attested copy of his request letter for early retirement from ICAR; certified copy of the file noting wherein Dr. Kumar was permitted by the ICAR to join as VC of the RLB Central Agricultural University, Jhansi; certified copy of appointment letter/notification of Dr. Kumar as VC in the University; etc., through seven points.
1.2 The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) returned the RTI application of the complainant stating that the payment of the RTI application fee was not made through a proper mode by the complainant and advised him to deposit the fee in the RTI Cell of the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare. Subsequently, the complainant resubmitted his RTI application dated 27.11.2015, in compliance with the directions of the CPIO. The complainant, not having received any response from the CPIO, thereafter, approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA) in appeal, with a request to direct the CPIO to provide the information/documents sought. The FAA does not seem to have adjudicated in the matter. Aggrieved, the complainant approached the Commission, with a request it to direct the CPIO to provide the requisite information and to impose penalty upon the CPIO for denying the complainant the information sought by him.
2. Complaint No. CIC/SH/C/2016/000210/MP Complainant : Shri Radhey Krishna Batham, Jhansi Public Authority : M/o Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare, New Delhi RTI application : 05.11.2015 CPIO's reply : 08.01.2016 First appeal : 05.01.2016 FAA's order : NA Complaint : 12.05.2016 2.1 Shri Radhey Krishna Batham, the complainant, sought the date on which the Agricultural Course in RLB Central Agricultural University, Jhansi, was started; name and designation of the competent authority of DARE, M/o Agriculture, who decided the commencement of the said course in the University in the academic year 2014- 15; complete file noting of the said decision; total no. of faculties who were on the pay roll of the University during the academic year 2014-15; etc., through ten points.
2.2 The complainant, not having received any response from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) within the period prescribed in this regard, filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), requesting him to provide the requisite information. The FAA does not seem to have adjudicated in the matter. Subsequently, the CPIO, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, forwarded the RTI application of the complainant to the CPIO, DARE for providing information to the complainant, directly. Aggrieved, the complainant approached the Commission, stating that he had not received the desired information either by the CPIO or FAA, DARE, till date and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO, DARE, to provide the requisite information in addition to imposing penalty upon the CPIO u/s 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
2.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present at the hearing in spite of notice for hearing having been duly sent to him. The appellant vide his RTI application dated 04.11.2015 had sought certain information regarding Dr. Arvind Kumar, first Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Rani Laxmi Bai (RLB) Central Agricultural University, Jhansi, who had also served as Deputy Director General (Education) in ICAR, Delhi from 2009-14, through seven points. The appellant in his other RTI application dated 05.11.2015 had sought details pertaining to the agricultural course being offered by the RLB Central University, Jhansi, etc., through ten points.
2.4 The CPIO, RLB Central University, Jhansi, stated that the RTI application dated 04.11.2015 of the complainant had been forwarded by the Department of Agriculture to Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE) which, in turn transferred the application in question to the University much late vide letter dated 05.04.2017, received in the University on 12.04.2017 and accordingly, whatever information was available with the respondent authority had been already provided to the complainant on 15.04.2017 along with the necessary documents. The CPIO requested for condonation of delay caused in the matter.
2.5 On hearing the respondent and perusing the records before it, the Commission observes that whatever information was available with the respondent authority had been provided to the appellant vide CPIO's letter dated 15.04.2017 and that a public authority is not supposed to create or collate non-available, non-existing information for the satisfaction of the appellant u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. A public authority is supposed to furnish only that information to the appellant which is held by it or under its control in material/data form under the Act. The Commission condones the delay caused in responding to the complainant's RTI applications, on request of the CPIO in view of the position that he had received it late. No further intervention is called for in the matter. Both the complaints are closed.
3. Complaint No. CIC/SH/C/2016/000122/MP Complainant : Shri Radhey Krishna Batham, Jhansi Public Authority : Indian Council for Agricultural Research, New Delhi RTI application : 06.11.2015 CPIO's reply : 13.11.2015 First appeal : 06.01.2016 FAA's order : NA Complaint : 16.03.2016 3.1 Shri Radhey Krishna Batham, the complainant, sought information from the ICAR, regarding Liaison Office of RLB Central Agricultural University, Jhansi, located at KAB-II, Pusa Building, New Delhi, which belonged to ICAR. The complainant sought the date on which the liaison office of the University was established at New Delhi; name and designation of the ICAR official who decided that the Room No. 212, Pusa Building would be given for the said liaison office; certified copies of all the office orders issued in respect of establishment of the liaison office in question; certified copy of the MoU signed between ICAR and RLB Central Agricultural University, Jhansi for the establishment of the said liaison office in New Delhi; etc., through ten points.
3.2 The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), ICAR, transferred the RTI application of the complainant to the CPIO (CAU), Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE) u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, for providing information to the complainant, directly, since, the administrative and financial matters relating to RLB Central Agricultural University came under the purview of DARE. The complainant, not having received any response from the CPIO (CAU), DARE within the period prescribed in this regard, filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), requesting him to provide the requisite information. The FAA does not seem to have adjudicated in the matter. Aggrieved, the complainant approached the Commission, stating that he had not received the desired information either by the CPIO or FAA till date and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the requisite information in addition to imposing penalty upon the CPIO u/s 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
3.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present at the hearing in spite of notice for hearing having been duly sent to him. The appellant had sought certain information regarding Liaison Office of RLB Central Agricultural University, Jhansi, located at KAB-II, Pusa Building, New Delhi, which belonged to ICAR.
3.4 The CPIO, Agricultural Education Division, ICAR submitted that the RTI application dated 06.11.2015 of the complainant pertained to administrative and financial matters of the RLB Central Agricultural University which came under the purview of DARE and therefore, the application in question was transferred on 13.11.2015 to the CPIO, DARE, for providing information to the complainant directly but, the CPIO concerned has not replied to the RTI application so far. However, the CPIO, RLB Central Agricultural University, Jhansi, informed the Commission that he was made aware of the said RTI application of the complainant only on 18.04.2017 by the Liaison Office and offered to provide the requisite information, as per the records available, to the complainant.
4.5 On hearing the respondents and perusing the records before it, the Commission observes that the RTI application is dated 06.11.2015 and the CPIO, DARE has not responded to the complainant's RTI application till date to whom the matter in question pertained to, which gave rise to the complaint and also finds that the requisite information, as per the records available, has been offered to be provided by the CPIO, RLB Central Agricultural University, Jhansi, to the complainant. The Commission further observes that there has been delay of over more than a year in the matter. A timely reply by the CPIO, DARE could have averted the complaint. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO, DARE to submit his explanation for not i) attending the hearing and ii) replying to the RTI application of the complainant within the time period stipulated since, the matter in question pertained to DARE, within ten days from the date of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The complaint is closed.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, RTI Cell, Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001 Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001 Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Under Secretary & CPIO (CAU), Department of Agricultural Research and Education, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001 Indian Council for Agricultural Research, Principal Scientist (EQR) & CPIO, Agricultural Education Division, Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan-II, PUSA, New Delhi - 110 012 Shri Radhey Krishna Batham, Advocate, Registration No. 6112/83, CJM Court Compound, Jhansi Uttar Pradesh - 284 001