Central Information Commission
Veerla Saisiva vs Registrar Of Newspapers Of India on 12 January, 2022
CIC/RNIND/A/2020/678483
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा/ Second Appeal No. CIC/RNIND/A/2020/678483
In the matter of:
Veerla Saisiva ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Asst. Press Registrar Office of the
Registrar of News Papers for India
9th Floor, Soochna Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 26.05.2020
CPIO replied on : 19.06.2020
First Appeal filed on : 10.07.2020
First Appellate Authority order : 14.07.2020
Second Appeal received on : 18.07.2020
Date of Hearing : 11.01.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Veerla Saisiva participated in the hearing upon being contacted on
his telephone.
Respondent: Shri Nawal Kishore Prasad, Registration Supervisor participated in
the hearing upon being contacted on his telephone.
Page 1 of 5
CIC/RNIND/A/2020/678483
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI Application dated 26.05.2020 seeking information as under:
"This is regarding the RNI Reference No.: 1348464 I had applied for title verification with title name VARTHA and some others, my application got rejected stating as that the proposed title/titles is/are not available as per RNI guidelines for Title Verification and/or in terms of proviso to section 6 of the PRB Act, 1867 as amended from time to time wherein it is stated that the newspaper proposed to be published should not bear a title which is the same as or similar to that of any other newspaper published either in the same language or in the same, I want to know the similar titles list in of proposed language in any state, I had searched the complete list of verified and deblocked list which was available online and updated to as I enquired previously about it via rti file RNIND/R/2019/50087 explained me that the title proposed would be verified in chronological manner specified in the application submitted for title verification, But, I think this had gone wrong while scrutinizing my application, as the proposed titles are not the suffix or prefixes nor similar to any of the verified or proposed titles.. if they are similar kindly give those similar titles list in chronological order to my five proposed titles, So that it may be crosschecked thoroughly from my side, as because I had applied to these titles keeping in view and following the guideline and amendments and guideline from time to time as per prb act 1867 and also the updated verified, DEblocked lists from online, once again I am here with forwarding my application in attachment form for your ready reference."
Shri Pushpvant, CPIO and Asst. Press Registrar, M/o. Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi vide letter dated 19.06.2020, informed the Appellant as under:
"The title proposed was not in consonance with the PRB Act, 1867.
The details of all titles verified/registered are available on the website of RNI www.rni.nic.in"Page 2 of 5
CIC/RNIND/A/2020/678483 Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.07.2020. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 14.07.2020, information had already been provided to Appellant vide letter dated 19.06.2020.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. The Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, the instant hearing is being scheduled through audio conference after informing both the parties.
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent. Upon queried by the Commission to substantiate his averment, he explained that the Respondent has provided information on point nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the RTI Application and has not provided any reply on point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI Application.
The Respondent reiterated the facts and circumstances of the instant Second Appeal.Page 3 of 5
CIC/RNIND/A/2020/678483 A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Michael Tonchuipam, CPIO vide letter dated 07.01.2022, wherein he has apprised the Commission as under:
Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that the Respondent public authority has provided adequate information as available on record. The Commission finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the Respondent. In view of the above, the Commission finds no further scope of intervention in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक / Date: 11.01.2022 Page 4 of 5 CIC/RNIND/A/2020/678483 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) /Deputy Press Registrar Office of the Registrar of News Papers for India 9th Floor, Soochna Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2. The Central Public Information Officer Asst. Press Registrar Office of the Registrar of News Papers for India 9th Floor, Soochna Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
3. Mr. Veerla Saisiva Page 5 of 5