Central Information Commission
Anindya Basu vs Department Of Science & Technology on 1 September, 2022
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
File no.: - CIC/MSTCH/A/2021/618720
In the matter of
Anindya Basu
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Ministry of Science and Technology,
Department of Science and Technology,
RTI Cell, Technology Bhavan,
New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi - 110016
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 16/03/2021 CPIO replied on : 23/03/2021 First appeal filed on : 24/03/2021 First Appellate Authority order : 16/04/2021 Second Appeal dated : 18/05/2021 Date of Hearing : 01/09/2022 Date of Decision : 01/09/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Dr Nagaboopathy Mohan, Scientist D & CPIO, present over intra VC Information Sought:
The appellant has stated that a research proposal submitted for funding by DST Nano Mission, with Project Number: DST/NM/NT/2020/270 (titled AMP Tethered Gold Nanoparticles - The Stepping Stone towards Development of Antimicrobial Materials), was rejected with the reason: Reject since routine study. In the said context, the appellant has sought the following information:
- Provide a list of institutions within India, where the proposed work is routinely practised and outcome related to the same.1
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 is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not given to him. The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 23.03.2021. He also referred to his written submissions dated 31.03.2022 Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO is grossly improper as rather than providing a categorical reply as to whether the information is available or not, it was stated that it was the duty of the appellant to find out which institutions are working in the relevant area. Since an incomplete reply was given to the appellant, the CPIO is directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide a categorical reply to the appellant and if the information is available somewhere else, the CPIO should collect the same and provide it to the appellant thereafter.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply as per the discussions held during the hearing. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
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 2 3