Central Information Commission
Dr. Swapan Garain, vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 11 May, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/MOHRD/A/2019/601745/03413
File no.: CIC/MOHRD/A/2019/601745
In the matter of:
Dr. Swapan Garain
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS)
Sion-Trombay Road, Deonar,
Mumbai 400088
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 14/10/2018 CPIO replied on : 21/02/2019 First appeal filed on : 16/11/2018 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 16/01/2019 Date of Hearing : 06/05/2020 Date of Decision : 06/05/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Present over phone
Respondent: Shri Shahaji Chavan, Administrative Officer and CPIO and Shri M.P Balamurugan, FAA, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought a list (including name of employee, post held, date of joining, date of disciplinary action and nature of disciplinary action) of regular and tenure employees in all campuses of Tata Institute of Social Science, against whom disciplinary action has been taken since 01.01.2000.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The appellant stated in his second appeal that the CPIO did not provide any information till date.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. He further submitted that the reply provided was severely delayed and the information provided has not specified the period for which the information relates and hence is to that extent incomplete. He also objected to the FAA's order and stated that his first appeal was not examined properly by the FAA. The CPIO at the outset submitted that at least 97 RTI applications were received in the last 3 years and that his case relates to a disciplinary case that was initiated against the appellant only. The appellant on the other hand objected that his disciplinary case has nothing to do with the RTI application and the issue should not be sidetracked.
The appellant contradicted the respondent by explaining that this case was only the 16th RTI filed and that he has not filed over 90 RTIs - in fact there may have been several communications exchanged but not RTIs. The appellant pressed for penalty against the CPIO and stated that in earlier cases decided by the same bench a warning had already been issued and if penalty is not imposed this time too, the respondents will not take the RTI Act seriously and the violation shall continue. He further pressed for a revised reply wherein the respondent should specify the time period for which the information was given.
The appellant also strongly objected to the reply given by the CPIO and the FAA after the second appeal was filed. He stressed that providing a reply during the pendency of second appeal amounts to overstepping the Commission's power and it is unbecoming of a CPIO and the FAA.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the records, it was noted that the CPIO had provided the information sought on 21.02.2019 in respect of 4 employee's viz. Full name of the employee, post held, date of joining, date of disciplinary action, nature of disciplinary action and tenure of employment. It is pertinent to see the verbatim of the RTI queries to understand whether an apt reply was given or not. The appellant had sought the list (including name of employee, post held, date of joining, date of disciplinary action and nature of disciplinary action) of 2 regular and tenure employees in all campuses of Tata Institute of Social Science, against whom disciplinary action has been taken since 01.01.2000. The CPIO had provided an apt reply and the information sought in the RTI application mentioned the period, which reflects and is obvious that the reply of the CPIO is relating to that period only. It appears that by pointing out the time period issue, the appellant is highlighting trivial issues which are otherwise not relevant. It is relevant to mention here that in the light of the RTI Act, the information sought should not have been given being related to personal information of third parties, neither Sec 11 notice was initiated nor was any public interest mentioned by the CPIO due to which he provided the information. The CPIO is cautioned to be careful in future with regard to the exemptions provided under the RTI Act. The FAA vide order dated 25.11.2019 held as follows:
" The appellant's application to PIO, Appeal to First Appellate Authority, Second appeals to Information Commissioner, CIC has been examined and it was found that the information as held by the office as on date of reply has been provided by the PIO to the applicant vide office letter dated 21.02.2019. There is no single teaching employee against which the Institute has taken any disciplinary action since 1.1.2000 except his (applicants) own case. Hence, it is stated that there is no more information held in the office"
Apart from the issue of delayed reply, the Commission finds no other valid ground for this second appeal. Moreover, from the records, it was noted that 13 second appeals of the appellant were registered in the year 2018, which were disposed of on 16.09.2019. The cases earlier decided by this bench were as follows: Case nos. CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/137573, 628573, 137571, 131480, 131559, 137576, 137578, 633633, 629405, 629401, 629390, 629387 and 633634. It was also noted that in most of the cases the reply provided was incomplete/delayed and in some of the cases the FAA's order was not complied with by the CPIO.
The relevant extracts of the orders are placed below for ease of reference:
CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/628573 "Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that the CPIO has dealt with the RTI application very callously, despite specific information being sought by the appellant. In his application, the appellant has sought details about the sequence of events which were discussed and brought to the notice of the Governing Body which had led to the suspension of the appellant. This information is neither vague nor unclear. The 3 CPIO in his reply has merely attached the minutes of the meeting dated 15.11.2017 and extract of the GB meeting dated 13.03.2018, which were not sought by the appellant. Moreover, the Commission is aghast to see the poor mechanism of the respondent organisation in handling the RTI applications. The PIO failed to give a cogent reason for such mismanagement in their organisation with regard to handling of the RTI applications.
Decision: The Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised reply as per the query raised by the appellant during the hearing within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A compliance report relating to the same shall be submitted to the Commission thereafter. An advisory u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Director, TISS, Mumbai to evolve a mechanism for proper handling of RTI applications and giving a reference number to each and every RTI application and first appeal. The respondent organisation should maintain records of the receipt of RTI correspondence digitally to avoid misplacement of RTI applications and appeals. The PIO is warned for not replying to the RTI application on time. The First Appellate Authority is also not sincere in disposing the first appeals; this is a sorry state of affairs in the organisation which shows their callousness and casualness towards the implementation of the RTI Act. The PIO is issued a strict warning to be careful with regard to the timelines prescribed under the Act and refrain from providing delayed replies which may attract penal action u/s 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/137571 "From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the main contention of the appellant is that incomplete information has been provided to him on point no. 1 where he had sought copies of all the documents which were enclosed with the item and notes to the agenda items, concerning the appeal of Dr. Swapan Garain dated 26.09.2017 addressed to the TISS Chairman, for the meeting of the TISS Governing Board held on 15.11.2017 and instead of this information, the PIO has supplied a copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 15.11.2017 only. The other issue brought to the notice of the Commission is that there is a delay of 01 year and 05 months in complying with the order of the First Appellate Authority, to which the PIO had no explanation to offer. The PIO has totally failed to comply with the order of his own First Appellate Authority, who, in his order dated 20.06.2018 has directed the PIO to provide the requisite documents/information to the appellant. The Commission is aghast to see the irresponsible attitude of the PIO who flouted the FAA's order and is responsible for the delay caused in providing the reply to the appellant.
Decision:
Based on the above observations, the PIO is directed to recheck the records available with them and provide a revised reply on point no. 1 of the RTI application enclosing the copies of all the documents which were enclosed with the agenda items and notes to the agenda items, concerning the appeal of Dr. Swapan Garain dated 26.09.2017, for the meeting of the TISS Governing Board held on 15.11.2017. The compliance should be done within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. The conduct of the PIO, S B Chavan in not 4 complying with the order of the FAA within a reasonable time amounts to gross violation of the provisions of RTI Act. The Commission expresses extreme displeasure at the conduct of the CPIO and warns him to remain extremely careful in future."
CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/131480 "From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO is not proper. With regard to point no. 1 of the RTI application, the appellant had sought copies of all the letters, memos, internal notes and office noting sheets written to and received from TISS, Chairman regarding his Appeal dated 26.09.2017. The CPIO in his reply had stated that information is not available. This response of the CPIO is not as per the provisions of the RTI Act as even if the information was not available with him, he was bound to transfer the RTI application u/s 6(3) to the custodian of the information or he could have sought assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from its holder. However, neither of the options was opted by the CPIO. The CPIO is directed to provide copies of all the documents generated in connection with the appeal. On point no. 2, the appellant submitted that copies of the entries in inward and outward Registers in connection with his above mentioned appeal were not provided to him, infact some irrelevant information had been provided to him. The CPIO should provide copies of the entries made in the register of the concerned Section while handling the said appeal. It is also noted that there is a delay of 19 days in replying to the RTI application only and not of 54 days as contended by the appellant. Decision: Based on the above observations, the CPIO is directed to relook into the matter and provide a revised reply on both the points of the RTI application after seeking assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from the holder of the information, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. The CPIO should also ensure that timely replies are provided to every RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act and refrain from providing delayed replies"
CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/131559 "From a perusal of the relevant case records and considering the submissions of the appellant, it is noted that even though some information had been provided to the appellant but the same was not in connection with the appeal dated 01.05.2016.The PIO in his reply dated 09.03.2018 had provided copies of the minutes of the meetings of the Governing Body held during the period 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2017 only . Copies of the agenda items and notes to the agenda items in connection with the appeal dated 01.05.2016was not provided. The Commission expresses its displeasure at the conduct of the PIO in giving such an incomplete reply to the appellant without considering all the points raised by the appellant in his RTI application. CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/137576 "From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO is not proper. With regard to point no. 1 of the RTI application, the appellant had sought copies of all the letters, memos, internal notes and office noting sheets written to and received from TISS, Chairman regarding his Appeal dated 01.05.2016.5
The CPIO in his reply had stated that information is not available. This response of the CPIO is not as per the provisions of the RTI Act as even if the information was not available with him, he was bound to transfer the RTI application u/s 6(3) to the custodian of the information or he could have sought assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from its holder. However, neither of the options was opted for by the CPIO. Also, the submissions of the CPIO seems to be misplaced as when the aforesaid appeal was addressed to the Chairman, he was bound to act on it whether he accepted or rejected it and any appeal regarding any disciplinary proceedings cannot go unattended. The CPIO is directed to provide copies of all the documents generated in connection with his appeal dated 01.05.2016. On point no. 2, the appellant submitted that copies of the entries in inward and outward Registers in connection with his above mentioned appeal were not provided to him, infact some incomplete information had been provided to him. The CPIO should provide copies of the entries made in the register of the concerned Section while handling the said appeal. Decision:
Based on the above observations, the CPIO is directed to relook into the matter and provide a revised reply on both the points of the RTI application after seeking assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from the holder of the information, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission."
CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/137578 "From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the main contention of the appellant is that incomplete information has been provided to him on point no. 3 where he had sought the details of purpose, date and amount of money paid to, and material assistance and/or non-financial support given or extended by TISS to Prof. Dinkar Nago Sandanshiv Foundation since 01.04.2013.The PIO during the hearing submitted that they do not have monetary details about the support, if any, given to Prof. Dinkar Nago Sandanshiv Foundation and the rest of the information as available on record has been provided to the appellant. On a query by the Commission as to whether a categorical reply that records pertaining to financial support given to Prof. Dinkar Nago Sandanshiv Foundation is not available with the respondent authority has been given to the appellant, the PIO answered in the negative. The other issue brought to the notice of the Commission is that there is a delay of 01 year and 05 months in complying with the order of the First Appellate Authority, to which the PIO had no explanation to offer. The CPIO has totally failed to comply with the order of his own First Appellate Authority, who, in his order dated 20.06.2018 has directed the PIO to provide the requisite documents/information to the appellant. The Commission is aghast to see the irresponsible attitude of the PIO, as neither a final reply on point no.3 was given at the relevant time nor was there any proper explanation whatsoever for the failure to do so. Clearly, the PIO flouted the FAA's order and is responsible for the delay caused in providing the reply to the appellant.
Decision:
6Based on the above observations, the PIO is directed to recheck the records available with them and provide a revised reply on point no. 3 of the RTI application mainly covering the issue of provision of financial support to Prof. Dinkar Nago Sandanshiv Foundation and if no such information is available with them, a categorical reply should be provided to the appellant. The compliance should be done within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. The conduct of the PIO , Shri S B Chavan in not complying with the order of the FAA within a reasonable time amounts to gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission expresses extreme displeasure at the conduct of the CPIO and warns him to remain careful in future."
CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/633633 "Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that the CPIO has dealt with the RTI application very callously, despite specific information being sought by the appellant. The CPIO should try to locate the information on points 1 to 3 and provide it to the appellant. However, the reply given in respect of point no. 4 is apt. It is not possible that the organization is unaware of the applicable retirement benefits to the appellant. While undoubtedly, as mentioned by the respondent, the appellant will have to fill the required forms and submit them to the organization to receive the retirement benefits, under the RTI Act, the appellant is entitled to receive information on the retirement benefits generally given in cases of compulsory retirement. Decision:
The First Appellate Authority is also not sincere in disposing the first appeal; this is a sorry state of affairs in the organisation which shows their callousness and casualness towards the implementation of the RTI Act. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised reply as per the RTI Act after checking the records again. The concerned provisions applicable for retirement benefits in his type of case must be provided within 15 days of the receipt of this order. A compliance report relating to the same shall be submitted to the Commission thereafter". CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/629405 "Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that the CPIO has dealt with the RTI application very callously, despite specific information being sought by the appellant. The CPIO should try to locate the information or should affirm on affidavit regarding the non availability of information. Moreover, the Commission is aghast to see the poor mechanism of the respondent organisation in handling the RTI applications. Further, the CPIO failed to give a cogent reason for not replying on time. Decision:
An advisory u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Director, TISS, Mumbai to evolve a mechanism for proper handling of RTI applications and giving a reference number to each and RTI applications, first appeal. The respondent organisation should maintain records of the receipt of RTI correspondence digitally to avoid misplacement of RTI applications and appeals. The CPIO is admonished for not replying to the RTI application on time. The First Appellate Authority is also not 7 sincere in disposing the first appeals; this is a sorry state of affairs in the organisation which shows their callousness and casualness towards the implementation of the RTI Act. The CPIO is issued a strict warning to be careful with regard to the timelines prescribed under the Act and refrain from providing delayed replies which may attract penal action u/s 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised reply as per the RTI Act after checking the records again or, if the said information is not available for any reason, the CPIO is then directed to affirm on affidavit and submit to the Commission regarding the non existence of any such information with the public authority with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant within 15 days from the date of its receipt. A compliance report relating to the same shall be submitted to the Commission thereafter."
CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/629401 " Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that the CPIO has dealt with the RTI application very callously, despite specific information being sought by the appellant. The CPIO should try to locate the information or should affirm on affidavit regarding the non availability of information. Moreover, the Commission is aghast to see the poor mechanism of the respondent organisation in handling the RTI applications. Further, the CPIO failed to give a cogent reason for not replying on time. Decision:
An advisory u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Director, TISS, Mumbai to evolve a mechanism for proper handling of RTI applications and giving a reference number to each and RTI applications, first appeal. The respondent organisation should maintain records of the receipt of RTI correspondence digitally to avoid misplacement of RTI applications and appeals. The CPIO is admonished for not replying to the RTI application on time. The First Appellate Authority is also not sincere in disposing the first appeals; this is a sorry state of affairs in the organisation which shows their callousness and casualness towards the implementation of the RTI Act. The CPIO is issued a strict warning to be careful with regard to the timelines prescribed under the Act and refrain from providing delayed replies which may attract penal action u/s 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised reply as per the RTI Act after checking the records again or, if the said information is not available for any reason, the CPIO is then directed to affirm on affidavit and submit to the Commission regarding the non existence of any such information with the public authority with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant within 15 days from the date of its receipt. A compliance report relating to the same shall be submitted to the Commission thereafter."
CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/629390 "Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that the CPIO has dealt with the RTI application very callously, despite specific information being sought by the appellant. The CPIO should try to locate the information or should affirm on affidavit regarding 8 the non availability of information. Moreover, the Commission is aghast to see the poor mechanism of the respondent organisation in handling the RTI applications. Further, the CPIO failed to give a cogent reason for not replying on time. Decision:
An advisory u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Director, TISS, Mumbai to evolve a mechanism for proper handling of RTI applications and giving a reference number to each and RTI applications, first appeal. The respondent organisation should maintain records of the receipt of RTI correspondence digitally to avoid misplacement of RTI applications and appeals. The CPIO is admonished for not replying to the RTI application on time. The First Appellate Authority is also not sincere in disposing the first appeals; this is a sorry state of affairs in the organisation which shows their callousness and casualness towards the implementation of the RTI Act. The CPIO is issued a strict warning to be careful with regard to the timelines prescribed under the Act and refrain from providing delayed replies which may attract penal action u/s 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act.
The Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised reply as per the RTI Act after checking the records again or, if the said information is not available for any reason, the CPIO is then directed to affirm on affidavit and submit to the Commission regarding the non existence of any such information with the public authority with a copy duly endorsed to the appellant within 15 days from the date of its receipt. A compliance report relating to the same shall be submitted to the Commission thereafter."
CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/629387 " Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that the CPIO has dealt with the RTI application very callously, despite specific information being sought by the appellant. The CPIO should try to locate the information or should affirm on affidavit regarding the non availability of information. Moreover, the Commission is aghast to see the poor mechanism of the respondent organisation in handling the RTI applications. Further, the CPIO failed to give a cogent reason for not replying on time. Decision:
An advisory u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Director, TISS, Mumbai to evolve a mechanism for proper handling of RTI applications and giving a reference number to each and RTI applications, first appeal. The respondent organisation should maintain records of the receipt of RTI correspondence digitally to avoid misplacement of RTI applications and appeals. The CPIO is admonished for not replying to the RTI application on time. The First Appellate Authority is also not sincere in disposing the first appeals; this is a sorry state of affairs in the organisation which shows their callousness and casualness towards the implementation of the RTI Act. The CPIO is issued a strict warning to be careful with regard to the timelines prescribed under the Act and refrain from providing delayed replies which may attract penal action u/s 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act."9
CIC/MOHRD/A/2018/633634 "Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that the CPIO has dealt with the RTI application very callously, despite specific information being sought by the appellant. The CPIO should try to locate the information. It is not possible that the organization is unaware of the applicable retirement benefits to the appellant. While undoubtedly, as mentioned by the respondent, the appellant will have to fill the required forms and submit them to the organization to receive the retirement benefits, under the RTI Act, the appellant is entitled to receive information on the retirement benefits generally given in cases of compulsory retirement.
Decision:
An advisory u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Director, TISS, Mumbai to evolve a mechanism for proper handling of RTI applications and giving a reference number to each and RTI applications, first appeal. The respondent organisation should maintain records of the receipt of RTI correspondence digitally to avoid misplacement of RTI applications and appeals.The CPIO is admonished for not replying to the RTI application on time. The First Appellate Authority is also not sincere in disposing the first appeals; this is a sorry state of affairs in the organisation which shows their callousness and casualness towards the implementation of the RTI Act. The CPIO is issued a strict warning to be careful with regard to the timelines prescribed under the Act and refrain from providing delayed replies which may attract penal action u/s 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. The Commission directs the CPIO to provide a revised reply as per the RTI Act after checking the records again. The concerned provisions applicable for retirement benefits in his type of case must be provided within 15 days of the receipt of this order. A compliance report relating to the same shall be submitted to the Commission thereafter."
The following table shows the status of the cases decided and pending before the Commission with the date of filing of the RTI application:
Case nos. Date of RTI Decided on Case nos. Date of RTI Decided on 137573 17.01.2018 16.09.2019 601745 14.10.2018 06.05.2020 628573 11.05.2018 16.09.2019 601746 15.10.2018 06.05.2020 137571 17.01.2018 16.09.2019 646456 09.03.2019 06.05.2020 131480 17.01.2018 16.09.2019 646463 11.03.2019 06.05.2020 131559 17.01.2018 16.09.2019 647845 10.03.2019 06.05.2020 137576 17.01.2018 16.09.2019 137578 19.01.2018 16.09.2019 633633 17.05.2018 16.09.2019 629405 11.05.2018 16.09.2019 629401 11.05.2018 16.09.2019 629390 04.04.2018 16.09.2019 629387 04.04.2018 16.09.2019 633634 01.06.2018 16.09.2019 10 The above table reflects that the earlier order of the Commission dated 16.09.2019 was much later than the RTI applications filed in the 5 appeal cases, the Commission is dealing with today i.e 6th May 2020. The earlier 13 cases which were decided on 16.09.2019 were those second appeals which were registered in the year 2018. The present 5 second appeals which are being decided on 06.05.2020 are those cases which were registered in the Commission in the year 2019. Similarly the Commission has 7 more second appeals pending for hearing which were registered before the Commission in the year 2020. The case nos. are CIC/MOHRD/A/2020/669069, 669277, 669286, 666917 and 667953. Basically the intention behind highlighting the above facts is that the appellant had filed RTI applications before the same CPIO in the year 2018, 2019 relating to which second appeals were filed by him in the year 2018 and 2019. The grounds for second appeals were the same;
delayed reply, incomplete reply or the non compliance of the FAA's order. All the above issues were well addressed in the previous orders and the CPIO and the FAA were cautioned suitably with strict warning to refrain from such practices in future. Furthermore, the appellant's plea that the CPIO and FAA had replied after the second appeal which is erroneous, is actually corrective action taken by the respondents in the light of this bench's advisory on 16.09.2019. For ease of reference, the relevant paras of the orders were already highlighted above. In view of the same, the Commission finds no mistake of law on the part of the CPIO and the FAA. There is no ban under the RTI Act that the CPIO and the FAA cannot provide a revised reply or further reply after the second appeal is filed. As far as the period for which the information relates is concerned, the CPIO may provide an additional reply clarifying that the period is since 01.01.2000 as sought for in the RTI application.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission in its effort to avoid repetition observes that the delay occurred in the present cases also is more or less related to the same time period i.e with regard to the RTI applications filed in the year 2018,2019. Therefore, the earlier observations given in the above mentioned orders shall apply here too, in so far as the present RTI application is concerned, the same was suitably replied to by the CPIO vide letter dated 21.02.2019 and further clarified by the FAA in his order dated 25.11.2019.
Keeping in view that the instant second appeal was filed on 16.01.2019, the Commission finds that the FAA after the order dated 16.09.2019 of the 11 Commission had promptly taken cognizance of the pending first appeals and had provided suitable reply and there is nothing irregular in doing so. Had the present cases also been clubbed with the earlier cases and decided on 16.09.2019 itself, the same decision would have been there, hence, to avoid contradiction no new action is being taken.
The PIO is however cautioned to be careful with regard to the timelines prescribed under the Act and refrain from providing delayed replies to prevent repeated second appeals before the Commission and to avoid penal action u/s 20 of the RTI Act. The additional reply as directed above may be provided to the appellant by e-mail within 10 days from the issue of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 12