Central Information Commission
Vivekanand Abhyankar vs Ministry Of Commerce & Industry on 27 April, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/MOCMI/A/2021/115668
Vivekanand Abhyankar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO,
Department of Promotion of
Industry and Internal Trade,
IPR-Establishment Section, RTI Cell,
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.
2. CPIO,
Assistant Controller of Patents and
Designs, O/o Controller General of
Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, RTI
Cell, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, S.M. Road,
Antop Hill, Mumbai - 400037, Maharashtra. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26/04/2022
Date of Decision : 26/04/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17/09/2020
CPIO replied on : 21/10/2020
First appeal filed on : 25/11/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 01/01/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25/03/2021
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.09.2020 seeking the following information:
" 1) Action taken report regarding my compliant dated 5th March 2020 (File No. P-24017/50/2018-IPR-I) in respect of "Initiating inquiry against Shri Sanjay Khandare, Asstt. Examiner of Trade Marks for submitting fake Degree certificate for getting promotion to the post of Assistant Examiner of Trade Marks.
(a) Copies of Note sheets regarding (File No. P-24017/50/2018-IPR-I) after Page No.16 onwards (I am having 1 to 16 Pages received under RTI Act 2005 from Ministry).
(b) Copies of correspondence done with CGPDTM Office Mumbai or other offices if any regarding the compliant (File No. P- 24017/50/2018-1PR-I)
2) Action taken report regarding my representation addressed to Shri Piyush Goyalji, Hon'ble Minister of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi and copies of correspondence done with CGPDTM Office Mumbai or any other offices if any, regarding the same.
3) I have decided to file a complaint before Central Vigilance Officer, DIIPT.
New Delhi regarding Misuse of Hired Car as per Representations. Please supply following information to submit the same before CVO, DIIPT, New Delhi:-
(a) Name & Designation of the Officer who is the overall in-charge of maintenance of CCTV Cameras situated in the building of Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, New Delhi.
(b) CCTV footage of Camera (in pen drive) situated at Entrance Main Gate of Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, New Delhi for the period January 2016 to till date.
(c) Details regarding hiring of Car (for official purpose) - Whether the process of hiring of car done by calling Tender from Vendors or through GeM. (Government e-Marketplace) during the period January 2016 to till date.
(c) Copies of Tender document approved/Agreement done between Vendors & Head of the Office Trade Marks Registry & Copyright Office, New Delhi respectively for the period January 2016 to till date regarding Hiring of Car for Official purpose only.
(d) Make & Model of hired Car, Vehicle number including copies of log book maintained by Car Driver of Hired Car both of TMR & 2 Copyright Office, New Delhi separately for the period January 2016 to till date.
4) Name and Designation of the Officer working in Copyright Office, New Delhi who misused the hired car up to their residence and coming back to office daily by the same hired Car from the last 5-6 months (who retired on 30th June 2020) which belongs to Patent Office, New Delhi for performing day-today office work.
5) Whether Drawing and Disbursing Officer of Patent Office, New Delhi aware of the facts regarding misuse of hired Car of Patent Office by the Copyright Officer, New Delhi?
6) Whether any Transport Allowance was deducted from the monthly salary of such officer who misuses the hired car of Patent Office by DDO?
7) Name & Designation of Officer who permit the Copyright Officer (Gr. A. Gazatted) to use the hired car belongs to Patent Office New Delhi. Copy of Office Order issued by the Officer concerned for using hired car up to the-
residence and coming back to office by the same hired car without deducting Transport Allowance.
8) Name of the Group "A" Officers whose appointment was done against the point or post reserved for disability persons (PH). Please supply Copies of Disability Certificates submitted by the Officers as per norms framed by DPOT Orders and copy of Medical Report submitted by the Officers to the Office before joining the Post."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant on 21.10.2020 stating as follows:-
"2. In this regard, it is informed that information sought by you under Point (1), (1)(a) & (1)(b) is Personal information disclosure of which has no relationship with any public activity/interest and which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. It is also difficult to make out any larger public interest that would justify disclosure of such private information. Hence, denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Information sought under Point (2) of the RTI Application dated 17.09.2020 with respect to representation to Sh. Piyush Goyal, Hon'ble Minister of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi it is stated that such representation has not been received by this section yet.
4. It is further informed that information sought under point (3) to (8) of the RTI Application dated 17.09.2020 Application pertains to O/o. ICGPDTM. Hence, the said RTI application with respect to information sought under 3 Point (3) to Point (8) is being transferred to the CPIO in the 0/o CGPDTM, Mumbai under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.11.2020. FAA's order dated 01.01.2021 held as under:-
"4. I have examined the records and it is observed that reason cited by the CPIO to deny the information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is not correct. Instead, since the matter is under examination, the information sought by the RTI applicant falls within the purview of record of deliberations on file on which no final decision has been taken and in view of provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, CP10 is under no obligation to provide such information to the applicant. Hence, the reply given by the CPIO is adequate but provisions of RTI Act quoted is wrong as corrected in discussion made above."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of non-receipt of desired information in response to points no. 1, 1(a) and 1(b).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference. Respondent no. 1: Pradeep Toppo, U.S. & Rep. of CPIO present through intra- video conference.
Respondent no. 2: Sunita, Assistant Controller & CPIO present through video- conference.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his instant Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. He further harped on the delay aspect on the part of CPIO in providing a timely reply.
The CPIO/ Respondent no. 1 while reiterating the averred reply explained that the investigation in the averred complaint is still underway and also the fact remains that it pertains to a third party, therefore the information was denied to him. He further invited attention towards the status of his complaint through FAA's order.4
The CPIO/Respondent no. 2 submitted that points no. 3 to 8 of RTI Application pertain to their office on which relevant inputs has already been furnished to the Appellant and no contentions have been raised by him on the said points.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of all the parties finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIOs' as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act, leaving behind no scope of further relief in the matter.
Further, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding the delay in reply is unacceptable as is evident from the records that timely response has been furnished by the CPIO as per the RTI Act.
In view of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5