Central Information Commission
Mrdebnarayan Kalyani vs National Institute Of Homeopathy on 20 May, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001104
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001105
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001106
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001108
Date of Hearing : 18.05.2015
Date of Decision : 20.05.2015
Complainant/Appellant : Shri Debnarayan Kalyani
Kolkata
Respondent : Dr. S.K. Nanda, FAA
Dr. Afsar Ali, CPIO Shri Benazir Chatterjee, Acct. Officer Nationl Institute of Homeopathy Kolkata Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging from complaint/appeal:
RTI applications filed on : 16.09.2013, 10.09.2013, 16.09.2013 & 30.09.2013 PIO replied on : 10.10.2013, 10.10.2013, 08.11.2013 & 22.10.2013 First Appeals filed on : 13.11.2013, 13.11.2013, 13.11.2013 & 13.11.2013 First Appellate Authority (FAA) orders on : No order , 30.12.2013, 05.12.2013 & 05.12.2013 Complaint/ Second Appeals received on : 12.03.2014 As the abovementioned appeals are similar to each other, the cases are being heard and decided together.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001104 The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 16.09.2013, seeking information on 5 points regarding attendance method in the public authority. CPIO in his reply informed the appellant that the information will be provided, once collected. The FAA did not dispose of the first appeal filed by the appellant.
The appellant stated that he had sought clear-cut information whether there is any exemption is given to Dy. Dir. or Admn. Officer. The CPIO stated that there is no special exemption given to them for marking attendance. He stated that since they were marking attendance in biometric, the same was not marked in the register.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001105 The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 10.09.2013, seeking information on 6 points regarding audit queries, observations, requisitions, memos submitted and issued by Audit team for auditing the accounts of NIH for year 2012-13. CPIO in his reply informed the appellant that the information will be provided, once collected. The FAA merely re-iterated the CPIO's reply.
The appellant stated that till date no information has been provided. The respondent stated that the audit report is already available in the public domain, in the form of Annual Report, since, March 2014. He further stated that at the time of replying to the RTI application, an interim reply was sent as the audit report was not tabled in the Parliament, therefore, it was denied. He also stated that the appellant is a regular applicant and he is aware of such proceedings.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001106 The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 16.09.2013, seeking information on 12 points regarding procurement and installation of CCTV camera, spy cams etc. CPIO in his reply informed the appellant that the information will be provided, once collected. The FAA merely re-iterated the CPIO's reply.
The respondent stated that no such appliances have been procured as such but are being used on trial basis. He also stated that a similar case has been dealt by the Commission in file no. CIC/YA/A/2014/000391 dated 20.03.2015. The respondent stated that the appellant along with a group of persons has been filing several RTI applications on similar issues.
F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001108 The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 30.09.2013, seeking information on 10 points regarding tenders issued to canteens for students and staff. CPIO in his reply informed the appellant that the information will be provided, once collected. The FAA merely re-iterated the CPIO's reply.
The appellant stated that he wants to know who is awarding these contracts to the canteens as the issue is related to the canteens' maintenance. The respondent stated that the student council is being run by students and employees are running the other canteens. There is no contract with any contractor as such.
Decision:
After hearing the parties and on perusal of record, the Commission, in F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001104, finds that no information has been provided to the appellant till date. The CPIO is directed to clearly state whether any exemption is being provided to the two officers; if yes, then the copy of the relevant note-sheet be provided; if no, then it shall be clearly intimated to the appellant that the two officers are marking their attendance on biometric. A revised reply on remaining points shall also be provided to the appellant. The information shall be provided to the appellant within three weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
In F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001105, the Commission directs the respondent to provide information on all points to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
In F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001106, the Commission has perused the order referred by the respondent. It is found that the RTI application is different in the instant case. Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent to provide specific information on every point regarding and installation of CCTV cameras etc. In case, information is not available on some points, then the reason for the same may be mentioned. This information is to be provided to the appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
In F.No. CIC/YA/A/2014/001108, the Commission directs the respondent to provide information on all points to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. In case, information is not available on some points, then the reason for the same may be mentioned.
The FAA, being a senior in rank to the CPIO and a quasi judicial body, would be well versed with not only the information sought by the appellant and the correctness of the information provided by the CPIO, but also about the provisions of the Act. The FAA should have, first, provided an opportunity of being heard to both the appellant and CPIO and, then, gone into aspects like whether CPIO has given correct reply, whether he has duly applied the provisions of the Act, etc. In the instant case, therefore, the FAA has failed to do so. The Deputy Registrar & Deputy Secretary of Registry of IC(YA) is directed to send a copy of this order to Director, NIH, Kolkata and Secretary, Dept. of AYUSH, within one week of receipt of this order, for information and necessary action.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar Copy to:-
Central Public Information Officer under RTI First Appellate Authority under RTI Nodal RTI Officer - RTI Cell, Director, National Institute of Homeopathy National Institute of Homeopathy (Department of AYUSH), (Department of AYUSH), Block-GE, Sector-3, Salt Lake, Block-GE, Sector-3, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106 (West Bengal). Kolkata-700106 (West Bengal).
Dr. Debnarayan Kalyani Director
President-NIHDRTA, Nodal RTI Officer - RTI Cell,
National Institute of Homeopathy National Institute of Homeopathy
Block-GE, Sector-3, Salt Lake, (Department of AYUSH),
Kolkata-700106 (West Bengal). Block-GE, Sector-3, Salt Lake,
Kolkata-700106 (West Bengal).
Secretary
Dept of AYUSH
AYUSH BHAWAN, B Block,
GPO Complex, INA,
NEW DELHI - 110023