Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sartaj Ahmad vs Central Council For Resrch In Unani ... on 25 June, 2025

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                     के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                            Central Information Commission
                                 बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CCRUM/A/2024/113571

Shri Sartaj Ahmad                                              ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Central Council for Research in Unani                 ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Medicine

Date of Hearing                         :   23.06.2025
Date of Decision                        :   23.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner          :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :          09.01.2024
PIO replied on                    :          05.03.2024
First Appeal filed on             :          24.02.2024
First Appellate Order on          :          19.03.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :          01.05.2024

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:-

"With reference to the subject mentioned above, I want the following information about a research paper entitled "A Study of Water Resources and Waterborne Diseases in Rural Population of Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India" sent by your institution for the publication in Hippocratic Journal of Unani Medicine (ILJUM) by Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine, New Delhi:

1. When was the above mention research paper send for the publication in above mention journal?

2. Who were the first and corresponding authors in this paper sent for the first time?

3. Who were the other co-authors in this paper and what was their sequence in the paper?

4. Have you received any query, suggestion or feedback from the editors of HJUM? If yes, then provide me a copy of that letter.

5. Was this paper withdraw from JJJUM? If yes, then when and why this paper was withdraw from the HJUM? Also provide me a copy of the withdrawal letter.

6. Was this paper rejected from the HJUM? If yes, then when and why this paper was rejected by HJUM? Also provide me a copy of rejection letter.

7. Was this paper send to any other journal for the publication? If yes, then when and why this paper was sent to another journal for publication? Also who were the authors in this paper and what was their sequence in the paper?

8. Did you inform the editor of HJUM before sending this paper to another journal?"

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.02.2024.

The CPIO & (Research Officer In-Charge), Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine, New Delhi vide letter dated 05.03.2024 replied as under:-

1. 20th March 2020

2. Annexure

3. Same as above

4. No

5. No

6. No

7. Not sure

8. No In regard to his first appeal, the FAA vide order dated 19.03.2024 stated that the information has already been provided to the Appellant vide CPIO's letter dated 05.03.2024.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Dr. Parvez Khan - Research Officer, Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine was present during hearing through video conference.

Respondent alone is present and contended that information available on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant, in terms of the RTI Act.

Decision:

Perusal of records of the instant case reveals that the Respondent had furnished information available on records, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, in terms of the provisions of the Act to the Appellant, who has chosen not to buttress the case. Considering the fact that the response of the PIO is legally appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)