Central Information Commission
Mr. Harikrishna S. Holla vs Trade Marks Registry on 7 October, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.2881 & 2882/ICPB/2008
F. No. PBC/2008/125, 128
October 7, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19
[Hearing on 22.9.2008 at 12.30 p.m.]
Appellant: Mr. Harikrishna S. Holla
Public authority: Trade Marks Registry
Central Public Information Officer
Parties Present: For Respondent:
Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Examiner
Appellant not present.
FACTS:
The appellant has filed two applications vide letter dated 26.2.2007 & 28.4.2007 addressed to Information Officer, Trade Marks Registry requesting information pertaining to certain Trade Marks and regarding their status. Likewise he has also requested information pertaining to certain Trade Marks by providing Numbers, Class, Trademark and he has requested present status of the case. The PIO has forwarded this letter to Section Incharge, Post Registration Section, Intellectual Property Bhavan, Antop Hill, Mumbai with the direction to provide the information to the appellant. Thereafter in respect of 1 application the appellant has received reply on 27.4.2007 by which the PIO has informed the appellant that the registration date is not available in the computer and all files had already been sent to Chennai Branch and he has requested the appellant to furnish all the necessary evidence to reconstruct the duplicate files. In respect of second application he has provided the same kind of reply without collecting the information. This has resulted in filing of second appeal before the Commission on 2.1.2008 (in respect of both the cases).
2. Comments were called for from the public authority vide letter dated 15.7.2008, which was received from PIO without providing any date by informing the Commission that the Trade Mark Registry incharge of Public Relation Section has been directed to give comments in the matter. In some Communication the PIO has also requested the appellant to remit some amount as fees to collect the information.
DECISION:
3 Both the cases were taken up for hearing on 22.9.2008, which was attended by Examiner (On contract) on behalf of CPIO for whom notice has been issued on 25.8.2008. The concerned person is not connected with the matter nor he has got any paper to attend the hearing with the result no purpose will be served in holding the hearing with the person who is not connected with the matter. The appellant did not attend the hearing. From the second application it is clear the appellant has requested 1 certain information pertaining to certain Trademarks, number, class with reference he has taken up the matter with the Trade Mark Registry and he has requested them to provide the present status of the case. The concerned PIO transferred this paper to another section of Trade Mark Registry and that person has stated he is not having any information since the concerned file has already been transferred to Chennai. Under RTI Act if the appellant has requested information, the PIO of headquarter is expected to collect the information from the concerned branch whoever is having information and provide it to the appellant. In this particular case the papers have been transferred to another branch in Mumbai and concerned authority has said this information is available in Chennai and the appellant has not received any information till today. Therefore I consider the PIO of the headquarter is responsible for not providing the information under RTI Act and I direct him to go through both the application and provide point-wise reply to the appellant after collecting the same from the concerned branch in Mumbai or from Chennai and provide it to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this direction and he should submit one copy to the Commission. While giving reply he should provide particulars of the first Appellate Authority, so that in case if the appellant wants to file any appeal he can file appeal before the first AA. As far as the delay is concerned there is no justification given by the CPIO while furnishing his comments. I therefore direct the CPIO to show-cause why penalty cannot be imposed on him u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act and he should forward his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of this direction. On these lines both the appeals stand disposed of.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar Address of parties :
1. Central Public Information Officer, Trade Marks Registry, M/o Commerce & Industry, Intellectual Property Bhavan, Near Antop Hill Head Post Office, S.M. Road, Antop Hill, Mumbai-400037
2. Mr. Harikrishan S. Holla, Holla Associates, 193, Kashi Bhavan, 6th Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-560009 2