Central Information Commission
Charanjeet Singh vs Office Of The Controller General Of ... on 9 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/CGPDT/A/2023/635948
Charanjeet Singh ......अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
M/o Commerce & Industry,
Intellectual Property Office,
Plot No. 32, Sec-14, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110078. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.08.2024
Date of Decision : 08.08.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.05.2023
CPIO replied on : 08.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 15.06.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 07.07.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.05.2023 seeking the following information:
A complaint with 13 pages of proofs was mailed to you from my id [email protected] on 6/4/2023 with my name details asking to cancel this registration and file an FIR against the accuses Page 1 of 4 It clearly proves that trademark registration number 2616135 was registered by your team by using 6 forged stamp papers and a notary stamp/signature Hopefully, you have read the complaint and taken the necessary actions So I need to know that:
1. What action is taken?
Provide me ATR
2. Provide me a copy of your orders to resolve this issue
3. Provide me a copy of replies received from concerned officers
4. And if you feel this complaint is not workable or proofs are not enough then give me the reasons to dismiss this matter Or what more do you need to work on it.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 08.06.2023 stating as under:
1-4 You are requested to please provide the e-mail address / name of officer on whom the complaint was served by you.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 06.07.2022 stating as under:
1. It is to be informed that a committee was constituted to inquire the allegations pertaining to fake stamp papers. The findings of committee were forwarded to HOTMR, Delhi for necessary action.
2. The order will be passed in due course of time and will be communicated to concerned parties.
3. No Such Record Available
4. N/A Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.06.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 07.07.2023, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant second appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Anurag, Examiner of Trademarks & GI & CPIO present in person.Page 2 of 4
Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent stated that full form of HOTMR is Head of Trade Mark Registration.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the relevant extracts are reproduced hereinbelow:
"6. The grounds mentioned in the second appeal filed by the appellant are incorrect, incomplete & misleading in nature. The Applicant filed RTI Application for the Action taken report in respect of complaint made against the registration ne-2616135 but he did not mention to whom complaint was made or any particular E-mail Id. In reply to the said RTI Application, Applicant was requested to provide the Email address/ Name of the officer to whom the Complaint was made. The RTI was disposed off on 01/06/2023 and on 06/06/2023 Applicant E-mail was received regarding the complete details of complaint and also the copy of complaint Annexed as Annexure-.VI After the Filing of first appeal the said E-mail was forwarded to the First appellate authority. The First appellate authority forwarded the Complaint to the Shri S.K. Pandey, Senior joint Registrar/ Chief Vigilance Officer, it was Informed that a committee was formed to inquire the Allegation and it was proposed to initiate the proceedings under Section- 57(4) of Trademarks Act, 1999.
The First Appeal was Accepted and CPIO was directed to provide information as per the Email Conversation. The Action Taken was provided and also informed that order will be passed in due course which will be communicated to the Concerned parties. The Proceedings were initiated under Section-57(4) of Trademarks Ac, 1999. And notes-sheet was uploaded in the Public domain on 26/09/2023 along with all the orders Annexed as Annexure-VIII. Subsequently order was passed on 01/05/2024 and the Application no-2616135 was removed.
8. It may be noted that, the Trade Marks Office has rightly replied to the RTI application and correspondence made by the Respondent well within the prescribed time lines."
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 06.07.2022, complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant. Further, a copy of their latest written submissions is also sent to the Appellant.
Decision Page 3 of 4 The Commission after adverting to the facts and averments made by the Respondent during the hearing, observes that the Respondent vide their letter dated 06.07.2022 had provided complete point-wise reply/information to the Appellant.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
Further, the Appellant is not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
No intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA M/o Commerce & Industry, Intellectual Property Office, Plot No. 32, Sec-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078.Page 4 of 4
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)