Central Information Commission
Devesh Agarwal vs Office Of The Controller General Of ... on 19 September, 2022
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CGPDT/A/2022/629873
Devesh Agarwal ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o the Controller General of Patents,
Design & Trademarks, Department for
Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade,
Adjacent to Antop Hill, S M Road,
Mumbai - 400037. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12/09/2022
Date of Decision : 12/09/2022
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10/07/2021
CPIO replied on : 12/08/2021
First appeal filed on : 20/08/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 31/08/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30/05/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.07.2021 seeking the following information:
Please provide a copy of the report of IPATS done by a selected group of patent examiners between 16 to 31 August 2016 and send to Dr. Prithipal Singh.1
The CPIO furnished replied to the appellant on 12.08.2021 stating as under:-
Please find attached with this e-mail, four documents comprising the information sought in four RTI applications CGPDT/R/E/21/00205-208 filed by you on 10.07.2021. Please note that as each of these documents is more than 1MB in size, so it could not be sent through RTI online module which has a size constraint of 1MB.
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.08.2021. FAA's order dated 31.08.2021, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Siddharth B. Jadhav, Examiner of Patents & Designs/CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of his RTI Application stated that he is aggrieved with the fact that despite payment of additional photocopying charges of more than Rs. 7,000 ; the requisite documents of IPATS tests for the period 16th to 31st August, 2016 have not been provided to him till date, rather the records furnished by the CPIO pertains to the month of November,2016 which is unrelated to the information sought.
In response to the Appellant's contentions, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards his latest written submission dated 10.09.2022, relevant extracts of which are as under -
"xxxx
1. The RTI application dated 10/07/2021 of the appellant seeking information for the point of "Please provide a copy of the report of IPATS done by a self-led group of patent examiners between 16 to 31 August 2016 and send to Dr. Prithipal Singh" was received in 0/0 CGPDTM.
2. The information sought by the applicant accordingly provided by the O/o CGPDTM, Mumbai on dated 12.08.2021.2
3. Subsequently, the then CPIO, Ms. Sandhya Kothari, Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, disposed of this RTI application. xxxxx
4. xxxx
6. It is submitted that then CPIO was provided with the copies of the IPATS test reports by the officials in IT team, which were provided to the RD applicant.
Further, in the annexure-II attached herewith provided by the officials of the IT team, it is informed that all the available documents were provided to the applicant through the CPI0.
7. As per the information provided by the officials in IT team, the scheduled time period of 16th to 31st Aug, 2016 for the test was revised. And the test was actually conducted on revised time period of 7th to 11th Nov, 2016. The reports copy of these tests were duly provided to the applicant on payment of applicable fee and there is no additional fee charged by the FAA as alleged by the RTI applicant.
8. In the appeal grounds, the appellant has wrongly attributed the comments made by the CTC committee (at page 4 and 5) in the MoM dated 24-10-2016 as that of the CPIO.
9. It is to be noted that "some reports" as mentioned in grounds of appeal are actually the resubmitted earlier test reports (i.e. the testing reports for the month of July). And the said reports which have already been provided to applicant in the reply of the RTI application...."
To a query from the Commission, the CPIO further clarified and emphasized the fact that a copy of the MoM dated 24.10.2016 vide which the schedule time period of the averred test was revised, was also furnished to the Appellant which adequately clarifies the position of the rescheduling of the period to November, 2016 as also treating the previous test held in August, 2016 as null and void. Therefore, this document provides the clarification and the information sought for by him. He further volunteered to resend a copy of his written submission along with enclosures to the Appellant through email.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no infirmity in the reply and further clarifications tendered by the CPIO through his written submission dated
10.09.2022 as it adequately suffices the information sought by the Appellant as per the provisions of RTI Act, leaving behind no scope of further relief to be add- on in the matter.
3However, in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his written submission dated 10.09.2022 along with enclosures free of cost with the Appellant through email.
The above said direction should be complied by the CPIO within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4