Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Amit Kumar vs Csio,Chandigarh on 29 July, 2024

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                 के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CSIOC/A/2023/602671.

Shri AMIT KUMAR.                                              ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                     ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
CSIO, Chandigarh.


Date of Hearing                        :   25.07.2024
Date of Decision                       :   25.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner         :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :         11.10.2022
PIO replied on                    :         17.11.2022
First Appeal filed on             :         09.12.2022
First Appellate Order on          :         04.01.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :         16.01.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.10.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"Q1.Whether the classes M Tech have been engaged by faculty of CSIR- Central Scientific Instruments Organisation Chandigarh in the year 2008? Please answer Yes or No Q2. Whether Whether the classes Phd have been engaged by faculty of CSIR- Central Scientific Instruments Organisation Chandigarh in the year 2008? Please answer Yes or No Q3.. Whether the classes M Tech have been engaged by faculty of CSIR- Central Scientific Instruments Organisation Chandigarh in the year 2009? Please answer Yes or No Q4. Whether Whether the classes Phd have been engaged by faculty of CSIR- Central Scientific Instruments Organisation Chandigarh in the year 2009 ? Please answer Yes or No Q5. Whether the classes M Tech have been engaged by faculty of CSIR- Central Scientific Instruments Organisation Chandigarh in the year 2010? Please answer Yes or No Q6. Whether Whether the classes Phd have been engaged by faculty of CSIR- Central Scientific Instruments Organisation Chandigarh in the year 2010? Please answer Yes or No"
Page 1 of 3

The CPIO vide letter dated 17.11.2022 replied as under:-

"Q1. No Q2. No Q3. Yes Q4. No Q5. Yes Q6. No"

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.12.2022. The FAA email dated 06.01.2023 stated as under :

References: i. Mr. Amit Kumar's Appeal No. CSIOC/A/E/22/00017 Dated 09.12.2022 ii. Mr. Amit Kumar's RTI Application No. CSIOC/R/E/22/00035 Dated 11.10.2022 iii. PIO's reply by online dated 17.11.2022 Dear Sir, This is with reference to your appeal which was received online on 09.12.2022 under RTI Act - 2005 vide you have requested to provide information. The reply sent through RTI Portal on 04.01.2022 was incorrect and the correct reply is being forwarded herewith by mail to your email address [email protected]. The reply sent by the CPIO, CSIR-CSIO, Chandigarh on 17.11.2022 stands unchanged.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present through video-conferencing Respondent: Mr. Umesh Tiwari, CPIO/Sr. Principal Scientist The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that the reply furnished by the PIO is not proper and same is without sign and seal.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been duly provided to the Appellant. He stated that the information sought in the instant RTI Application do not conform to Section 2(f) of RTI Act as the Appellant has sought clarifications/inferences from the CPIO Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made during hearing, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Commission notes that giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are Page 2 of 3 beyond the scope of duty of the CPIO. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)