Central Information Commission
Mr.S K Lal vs Ministry Of Commerce And Industry on 7 March, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000268
Dated: 07.03.2013
Name of Appellant : Shri S.K. Lal
Name of Respondent : Controller of Patents & Designs
Date of Hearing : 20.02.2013
ORDER
Shri S.K. Lal, hereinafter called the appellant, has filed the present complaint dated 27.2.2012, before the Commission against the respondent Controller of Patents & Designs, Mumbai for providing unauthenticated and wrong information in response to his RTI-application dated 10.7.2011. The appellant and Dr. K. S. Kardam, FAA were present in person whereas the Shri N. Ramachander, Assistant Controller of Patents/CPIO was present at NIC Video- conferencing Facility Centre, Mumbai.
2. The appellant, through his RTI application dated 10.7.2011 has sought information on the following four queries: "(1) Post-wise vacancy position of all the Group 'A' Posts under the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks, and all its Branch Offices, as on 21.9.10, 13.12.10 and 23.6.11; (2) Transfer and Posting Policy for Group 'A' Officers working/who have to work under the Office of the Controller General of Patents, or in its Branch Offices; (3) Please inform whether the O/O the Controller General of Patents follows the GOI Guidelines on the subject pf posting of such husband and wife at the same station who are in Government Service; and (4) Up to date list and 2 Case No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000268 details of all the cases in which the O/O Controller General of Patents has given initial posting to the Examiner of Patents and Designs, to a Station different from his/her spouse's station in spite of the fact that there were posts vacant at the station where the other spouse already working in some other Government Department/Body was posted". The CPIO vide his letter No. GPM/RTI/51 dated 20.7.2011 replied to the appellant as follows: "(1) The various posts created in the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks are distributed in different branch offices according to the ratio of the pending applications and number of officers at that time. There is no post-wise vacancy in Group A in different branch offices under the office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs; (2) The Officers of Group A are posted according to the existing workload and exigency of work in different offices; (3) The guidelines on the subject of posting of husband and wife at the same station who are in Government service are followed by the Office; and (4) Not applicable in view of reply as in Para 1".
3. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 3.8.2011 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. POD/RTI/ Appeal/8/10/2011 dated 1.9.2011 held that although the CPIO has provided the said information within the prescribed period but not fully in respect of Point No. 1 and 4 of the RTI application. The FAA directed the CPIO to provide following information within 15 days: (1) Post-wise strength of manpower as available in the Annual Report upto March, 2010 wherein branch-wise information is given. For the period upto 23.6.2011, the necessary information may be gathered from the branches and sent to the appellant; and (2) Information regarding initial posting of Examiner.
4. In compliance with the direction of the FAA, the CPIO vide letter No. 95 dated 12.9.2011 informed the appellant as follows: "(1) Post-wise strength of manpower as available in the Annual Report upto March, 2010 wherein the branch-wise information is given. Further the CPIO provided information upto the 3 Case No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000268 period 23.6.2011 consisting of three pages; (2) Such type of data has not been compiled and maintained by the office. However, whenever any representation is made, each case is considered in its own facts and merit as per Rules".
5. The appellant in his complaint states that the respondent have provided wrong and unauthenticated information in reply to his RTI application dated 10.7.2011.
6. During the hearing the respondent CPIO states that he has provided information and/or copies within the time limit. He has not denied the requested information. The FAA, who was present, also expressed satisfaction with the compliance of his directions by the CPIO.
7. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission observes that requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant. The Commission finds no reason to interfere with the replies of the respondent.
The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar 4 Case No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000268 Address of the parties:
Shri S.K. Lal, Quarter No. 25, Type IV, E.S.I Hospital Colony, Basaidarapur, New Delhi.
The CPIO, Office of the Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office, Bouddhik Sampada Bhawan, Near Head Post Office, S.M. Road, Antop Hill, Mumbai-400037.
The First Appellate Authority, Office of the Controller of Patents & Designs, Intellectual Property Office Building, Plot No. 32, Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.