Central Information Commission
Nandlal Vyas vs Indian Agricultural Research ... on 28 August, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सच
ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/INARI/A/2018/157615
In the matter of:
Nandlal Vyas
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI),
Pusa, New Delhi - 110 012
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 24/03/2018 CPIO replied on : 23/04/2018 First appeal filed on : 05/05/2018 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 18/08/2018 Date of Hearing : 27/08/2020 Date of Decision : 27/08/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Shri Kumud Kaushal, Assistant Administrative Officer and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
1The appellant has sought the following information in respect of Sh. Balraj Singh Chaudhary working at the Centre for Protected Cultivation Technology (CPCT):
1. Copy of the recommendations made by Agriculture Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB) for the appointment Sh. Balraj Singh Chaudhary as Sr. Scientist in IARI.
2. Copy of the appointment order of Sh. Balraj Singh Chaudhary issued by IARI.
3. Copy of the application submitted by Shri Balraj Singh Chaudhary.
3. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the complete information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present for the hearing, despite duly served notice on 10.08.2020 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED596638440IN. His second appeal was perused in which he submitted that the letter dated 23.04.2018 was despatched on 11.05.2018 and accordingly received by him on 28.05.2018. He further submitted that this is a fraudulent act. Furthermore, he submitted that if some points of his RTI application were related to some other public authority, the same should have been transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act. He also alleged that after payment of photocopying charges by him, incomplete documents were sent to him.
On a query by the Commission, the CPIO submitted that there is no FAA order on record.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the appellant had already paid the photocopying charges though the reply was received late, and therefore the issue now does not survive. In so far as the appellant's claim of the reply provided being incomplete , he had not specified which points were not correctly replied/incomplete. The FAA's act of not disposing of the first appeal was not correct and he is issued a strict warning for not complying with Sec 19 of the RTI Act. A copy of this order shall be served to the FAA by the CPIO.2
Decision:
In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. The Appellant has not availed of the opportunity to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions. The Commission accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date 3