Central Information Commission
Sh. Rajvir Singh vs National Bureau Of Plant Genetic ... on 25 January, 2010
Central Information Commission
Room No. 5, Club Building, Near Post Office
Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel No: 26161997
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2009/00097
Name of Appellant : Sh. Rajvir Singh
Name of Respondent : National Bureau of Plant
Genetic Resources, (ICAR)
Background
Sh. Rajvir Singh, the appellant has filed an application dated 11.06.2009, under the RTI Act, 2005 seeking the following information:- "Medical reimbursement claims submitted by Mrs. Sanjeevan Praksh, the then F&AO, NBPGR, New Delhi in respect of her husband, Sh. Rajan Khurana, for the period June, 2005 to December 2007. Kindly supply Diagnosis/Prescription Slip, Essentiality Certificate and the amount claimed and reimbursed to her along with the notings."
The CPIO / Sr. Administrative Officer, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources replied to the RTI application as follows:- "In view of above cited reference & subject it is to inform that the request of the applicant is rejected under Section 8(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The applicant is seeking information which would impede the process of investigation (Section 8(h) of the RTI Act)."
Not satisfied with the reply, the appellant filed a first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA)/Director, NVPGR. The FAA, through his letter dated 12.08.2009, decided as follows:- "Please refer to your letter dated 15.07.2009 on the subject cited above. All the documents of the case and also the provision of the act have been examined and I agree with the PIO that the information cannot be given under the Section 8(h) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as already informed vide letter no. 5(1)/2006-P-III/ dated 17.06.2009, which you have acknowledged in your letter under reference."
Thereafter, not being satisfied with the reply received from the respondent, the appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission alleging that cogent reasons have not been given.
2. The matter was heard on 25.01.2010.
3. Sh. I. S. Harith, was present on behalf of applicant.
4. Smt. Sunita Sharma, Senior Admin. Officer and Sh. S.K. Sharma, Director represented the respondent public authority.
During the hearing the appellant submits that he had not been given sufficient grounds for denial of the information sought for by him. The respondent other the other hand, submit that the investigation process in this matter is going on and decision on the role of Ms. Sanjeevan Prakash is to be taken by her disciplinary authority which is ICAR, Headquarters.
Hence, the rejection is justified under Section 8(h) of RTI Act, 2005."
Decision After hearing the parties and on perusal of the documents the Commission finds that preliminary investigation into the matter is still going on and decision on the conduct of Ms. Sanjeevan Prakash, is yet to be taken by the competent authority. Hence, the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. by the respondent is upheld, hence the decision of the respondent cannot be informed with.
The matter is disposed off accordingly.
(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner 25.01.2010 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2009/00097 Authenticated true copy:
(P.C. Purkait) S.O. & Asst. Registrar Copy to:
1. Sh. Rajvir Singh Technical Offcier (T-6) Germplasm Conservation Division NBPGR New Delhi-110012
2. Smt. Sunita Sharma Sr. Admin. Officer & PIO National Bureau of Plan Genetic Resources Indian Council of Agricultural Research Pusa Campus New Delhi-110012
3. Sh. S. K. Sharma Director Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources New Delhi-110012