Central Information Commission
Mrardhendu Sekhar Khanra vs Ncl,Pune on 25 August, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/KY/A/2015/000732
Appellant : Dr. Ardhendu Sekhar Khanra
Dakshin Durgapur Village
Via-Anantapur, Howrah District,
West Bengal-711301
Public Authority : The DS & CPIO
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, Anusandhan Bhawan,
2 Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001
Date of Hearing : 25.08.2015
Date of Decision : 25.08.2015
Presence:
Appellant : Absent
CPIO : Shri Rajeev Sharma, CPIO
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 15.01.2015, the appellant sought information on the 5 issues.
II. CPIO, vide its response dated 07.04.2015, has not provided the information to the appellant.
III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 29.09.2015, as desired information not provided.
IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide his order dated 23.06.2015, upheld the views of CPIO.
V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 06.07.2015, are contained in the Memorandum of Appeal.
HEARING Appellant opted to be absent despite of our due notice to him. Respondents appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 15.01.2015, sought information from the respondents on five issues. Respondents, vide their response dated 07.04.2015, allegedly not provided the required information to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 29.09.2015 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 23.06.2015, upheld the decision of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
......2 -2-
2. However on careful perusal of the nature of issues as raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 15.01.2015 in the light of respondent's response dated 07.04.2015, it is revealed that the respondent failed to provide the required information to the appellant. The Commission also feels that respondent's reply dated 07.04.2015, is full of doubt and vague in nature. Thus, it is legally inferred that respondents have not provided the required information to the appellant on his RTI application dated 15.01.2015.
3. The Commission heard the submissions made by respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 15.01.2015, respondent's response dated 07.04.2015, FAA's order dated 23.06.2015 and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
4. The Commission is of the considered view that the appellant has been deprived by the respondents deliberately from having the benefits of the RTI Act 2005, even after lapse of more than seven months period. Thus, the respondents have defeated the very purpose of the RTI Act 2005 for which it was legislated by Parliament of India. As such, the Commission feels that appellant's second appeal deserves to be allowed in toto. Therefore, it is allowed in toto.
5. In view of the above, the respondents are hereby directed to provide the complete and categorical information, issue-wise, to the appellant as per his RTI application, in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act 2005, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this Commission. If need be, Section 5(4) of the RTI Act 2005 be also invoked in the matter.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Prakash) Deputy Registrar The DS & CPIO Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, Anusandhan Bhawan, 2 Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001 Dr. Ardhendu Sekhar Khanra Dakshin Durgapur Village, Via-Anantapur, Howrah District, West Bengal-711301