Central Information Commission
Nilesh G. Naiknaware vs Department Of Industrial Policy & ... on 19 November, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/DOIPP/A/2018/620911/02156
File no.: CIC/DOIPP/A/2018/620911
In the matter of:
Nilesh G. Naiknaware
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion
Room No. 255, Udyog Bhawan - 110 011
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 10/02/2018 CPIO replied on : Not on record First appeal filed on : 14/03/2018
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 20/04/2018 Date of Hearing : 15/11/2019 Date of Decision : 15/11/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Shri Tarun Sharma, Court Officer and Representative of the CPIO, IPAB; Ms. Pooja Swarup, Deputy Secretary and CPIO, DOIPP and Shri Rajesh Ranjan, Under Secretary and CPIO, present in person Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Number of applications/cases filed with IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board) across India, against the DECISION (of either Grant or Refusal) given by Controller/ Dy. Controller/Asst. Controller, in last 3 years. And out of these applications/cases, in how many applications/cases the ORIGINAL DECISION has been CHANGED/REVERSED after hearing/ proceedings.1
2. Number of applications/cases filed with the honourable HIGH COURT across India, against the DECISION (of either Grant or Refusal) given by IPAB/ Controller/Dy. Controller/Asst. Controller, in last 3 years. And out of these applications/cases, in how many applications/cases the ORIGINAL DECISION has been CHANGED/REVERSED after hearing/ proceedings.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he had not received any reply yet. The CPIO, DOIPP submitted that since the sought for information pertains to IPAB, Chennai, hence, the RTI application was transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 12.03.2018 to Shri Sanjeev Kumar Chaswal, Technical Member, IPAB, Chennai.
The CPIO's representative submitted a written submission from the CPIO, IPAB, Chennai Shri N.K Ramesh in which he submitted that the then CPIO and PIO are not aware of the letter dated 12.03.2018 received from Ministry alongwith the RTI application dated 10.02.2018 addressed by name to Shri Sanjeev Kumar Chaswal, Technical Member,(Trademarks) IPAB, Chennai. The records are not traceable as the Court Officers appointed on contract basis had left this office. The first appeal particulars filed before the First Appellate Authority are also not available or traceable in the RTI files. The representative also submitted that there is no record available in Delhi Registry cum Bench.
On a query by the Commission regarding the status of first appeal, the CPIO DOIPP submitted a letter dated 04.11.2019 provided by Shri Pradeep Toppo, Section Officer as follows:
".......................to state that the first appeal/complaint dated 14.03.2018 as referred in the notice) for the RTI application No. DOIPP/R/2018/50050 dated 10.02.2018 filed by Shri Nilesh G. Naiknaware, Pune is not available in the official records of this Section. It is requested that a copy of the said appeal dated 14.03.2018, if received in this Department may also be provided to this Section."
The representative of the CPIO, IPAB also submitted that the then CPIO has retired from service and he was a contractual employee.
2File no.: CIC/DOIPP/A/2018/620911 Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record it is noted that the CPIO DOIPP claimed that the RTI application was transferred vide letter dated 12.03.2018 was to the CPIO, IPAB Chennai. However she failed to submit despatch details of the said letter. She also could not justify how a first appeal filed online through RTI portal, bearing RTI appeal registration no. DOIPP/A/2018/60015 was not received by the then FAA who was holding the post on 14.03.2018. The CPIO IPAB reiterated their stand that the RTI application and the first appeal were not received by their office.
The Commission is of the opinion that the pleas of the CPIO IPAB that the records are not traceable as the Court Officers appointed on contract basis left the office, is unsustainable, as the employees can be contractual/temporary/adhoc etc but the record maintenance cannot be maintained so casually. The then CPIO may be a contractual employee but the department cannot get away with the plea that the then concerned CPIO had left office.
The submissions by the CPIO, IPAB Chennai contains a point wise reply which is apt. However, the fact remains that the same was not yet provided to the appellant.
Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that the reply was not provided to the appellant in the first place as the CPIO, DOIPP transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, IPAB Chennai vide letter dated 12.03.2018. However as there is no despatch details submitted by the present CPIO, she should affirm on oath through affidavit that the same was sent to the CPIO IPAB Chennai vide letter dated 12.03.2018. The present CPIO IPAB Chennai Shri N.K Ramesh, Deputy Registrar also claimed that the then CPIO and PIO are not aware of the letter dated 12.03.2018 received from the Ministry alongwith the RTI application dated 10.02.2018 addressed by name to Shri Sanjeev Kumar Chaswal, Technical Member,(Trademarks) IPAB, Chennai. The records are not traceable as the Court Officers appointed on contract basis had left the office. Hence Shri N.K Ramesh, Deputy Registrar should affirm on affidavit that the said letter dated 12.03.2018 was not received by their office.3
Decision:
Shri N.K Ramesh, Deputy Registrar is directed to send the requisite reply to the appellant via e-mail to [email protected]. He is also directed to affirm on affidavit and submit to the Commission with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. Ms. Pooja Swarup, Deputy Secretary and CPIO should affirm on oath through affidavit that the same was sent to the CPIO, IPAB Chennai vide letter dated 12.03.2018. She should also affirm on affidavit that the first appeal was not received in DOIPP.
An advisory is issued u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act to the Chairman, IPAB to develop a mechanism with the help of DOIPP to receive RTI applications and first appeals online. The public authority's name available in the RTI portal does not contain the details of the Intellectual Property Appellate Boards, which was the reason the same was filed online to DOIPP and hence a corrective measure is required.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4 File no.: CIC/DOIPP/A/2018/620911 Copy to:
Shri N K Ramesh Dy. Registrar Intellectual Property Appellate Board Guna Complex, Annexe-1, 2nd Floor 443 Anna Salai, Teynamper Chennai - 600 018 The Chairman Intellectual Property Appellate Board Guna Complex, Annexe-1, 2nd Floor 443 Anna Salai, Teynamper Chennai - 600 018 5