Nandlal Vyqas vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 24 November, 2020

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Nandlal Vyqas vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 24 November, 2020

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/ICARH/A/2019/102256


In the matter of:
Nandlal Vyas                                                      ... Appellant
                                VS

1. Central Public Information Officer,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Bhawan, Dr Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 110001

2. CPIO / Chief Administrative Office,
ICAR - Central Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI),
Jodhpur - 342003                                                ... Respondent

RTI application filed with           :   18/09/2018
Respondent No.2 on
04/08/2018 transferred to
Respondent No.1 through ASRB
on
CPIO replied on                   :      16/10/2018
First appeal filed on             :      25/10/2018
First Appellate Authority order   :      Not on record
Second Appeal dated               :      03/01/2019
Date of Hearing                   :      23/11/2020
Date of Decision                  :      23/11/2020

The following were present:

Appellant: Present through video conference. Respondent No.1: Vampad Sharma, Under Secretary & CPIO (Personnel-II) present through video conference.

Respondent No.2: B S Khichi, Assistant Administrative Officer & Representative of the CPIO present through video conference.

Information Sought:

The appellant in his second appeal has stated that he has not received satisfactory information for point No.5 of his RTI application, wherein he has sought for the following information:

5. A copy of the application submitted by Mr. Balraj Singh, at the time of his selection to the post of Sr. Scientist, Seed Technology, CAZRI.

Grounds for Second Appeal Respondent No.1 has denied the information sought for at point no.5 of the RTI Application under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The Appellant stated that with respect to point no.5 of the RTI Application Respondent No.2 failed to transfer the RTI Application to Respondent No.1 within 5 days of the receipt of the RTI Application which is a violation of the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. He further stated that Respondent No.1 eventually denied the information sought for under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act even though he had only asked for a copy of the application submitted by the averred individual for selection to the post of Sr. Scientist, Seed Technology, CAZRI.

The Commission remarked at the conduct of the Appellant throughout the hearing as he set out his submissions in an extremely argumentative manner and continued to create a mockery of the proceedings before the bench. The Appellant refused to maintain the decorum of the hearing proceedings and even retorted disdainfully that the bench should listen to him as he has every right to speak under the RTI Act.He also addressed the bench disrespectfully hurling unnecessary accusations.

Observations:

The Commission observes that the instant matter could not be heard effectively owing to the Appellant's unabashed conduct during the hearing. However, from a perusal of the facts on record it is evinced that Respondent No.1 has provided an appropriate reply to point no.5 of the RTI Application denying the information sought for under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This 2 observation is in line with a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.

Further, as regards the contention of the Appellant regarding the alleged delay in transferring the RTI Application, the Commission observes that the instant Appeal was filed against Respondent No. 1 only with respect to the reply provided to point no.5 of the RTI Application. There is no material on record to suggest that the Appellant has exhausted the channel of filing a First Appeal against the reply/transfer letter of Respondent No.2, in the absence of which, the instant Appeal is not maintainable against Respondent No.2.

Decision:

In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission finds the instant Appeal bereft of merit and upholds the reply of Respondent No.1. The Appellant is further warned to steer clear of adopting such repulsive mannerisms during the hearing proceedings of the Commission in future and ensure following the appropriate decorum required during the hearing.

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 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission