Central Information Commission
N Anbarasan vs Ministry Of Communications & ... on 30 August, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171267/01358
File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171267
In the matter of:
N. Anbarasan
... Appellant
VS
CPIO/ Scientist 'F'
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 29/11/2017 CPIO replied on : 13/03/2018 First appeal filed on : 12/07/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 27/07/2018 Second Appeal dated : 01/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 13/08/2019 Date of Decision : 27/08/2019 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Scientist F, MEITY and CPIO, Shri S.K Srivastava, Scientist G, MEITY and FAA Information Sought:
The appellant has sought contact details and designations of following persons:
1. Shri. S. Ramakrishnan, DG, CDAC, who has submitted the project proposal "Indian Language Computing Initiative: National Roll-Out-Plan".
2. Mr. M.D. Kulkarni, Programme Co-ordinator who had signed Utilisation Certificate dated 15.10.07.
3. Sh. Mahesh D. Kulkarni, Programme Co-ordinator who had signed Utilisation Certificate dated 07.08.2009.1
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant reiterated the contents of his second appeal. In his second appeal he had submitted that the CPIO, Shri Vijay Kumar, vide his letter dated 06.12.2017 had intimated that "On the above subject the inputs of the TDIL Programme of Human Centered Computing Division are being collated it may take some time please bear with us." He further submitted that the CPIO had provided uncertified copy of incomplete information vide letter dated NIL. In response to his letter to send certified copies of information as requested in the RTI application, the CPIO sent certified copies of the same incomplete information sent earlier.
He further submitted that as the letter is not dated, he faces difficulty in counting the 30 days of time limit to file the First Appeal within the prescribed time limit. He requested the Commission to advise the CPIO to mention the date of the letter while providing information or sending intimation.
He further submitted that he had requested the present contact details of the officials, who had signed the documents referred by the Appellant. The appointment orders or documents pertaining to deputation of these officials would contain the present address of these officials. If the requested information is not available with the public authority, the part of the request could have been transferred to the concerned public authority under the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005. But the CPIO had intimated that "No such document available on record". In the absence of the requested information, how these officials had handed over the charge if they are not presently working in the same organisation. He requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to transfer the part of the request to the concerned authority, which had appointed them.
2File no.: CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/171267 Furthermore he contended that being a citizen of India, he has every right to file as many RTI Applications as he likes. He further stated that information provided is misleading and fabricated, not to his satisfaction. Upon the Commission's query regarding as to why he feels the information provided is misleading or unsatisfactory, he insisted on alleged lack of bonafide in the conduct of the respondents.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply dated 13.03.2018 and stated that no such document is available on record. The appellant may look on CDAC portal http://www.cdac.in.
The CPIO urged the Commission to look into the issues faced by the public authority in dealing with the RTI Applications and First Appeals of the Appellant as it has been incurring disproportionate diversion of resources.
Observations:
The appellant was given a patient hearing and each point of his second appeal was gone through in detail. The CPIO's contentions were also recorded. After hearing both the parties, the Commission fully agrees with the submissions of the CPIO regarding the nature of the information sought in the RTI applications. Further, it is also observed that the RTI application has been responded to pointwise.
The reply provided by the CPIO reads as follows:
1. Shri. S. Ramakrishnan, DG, No such document available on CDAC, who has submitted the record. May look on CDAC portal project proposal "Indian http:/www.cdac.in Language Computing Initiative:
National Roll-Out-Plan".
2. Mr. M.D. Kulkarni, Programme No such document available on Co-ordinator who had signed record. May look on CDAC portal Utilisation Certificate dated http:/www.cdac.in 15.10.07
3. Sh. Mahesh D. Kulkarni, No such document available on 3 Programme Co-ordinator who record. May look on CDAC portal had signed Utilisation Certificate http:/www.cdac.in dated 07.08.2009
4. Shri M. D, Kulkarni, Programme No such document available on Co-ordinator who had signed record. May look on CDAC portal Utilisation Certificate dated http:/www.cdac.in 01.06.2010
5. Smt. Pushpa Gilani, Dy. Director No such document available on who had issued Sanction letter record. May look on CDAC portal 11(2)/2005-HCC(TDL) dated http:/www.cdac.in 29.09.2008
6. Smt. Pushpa Gilani, Joint No such document available on Director who has issued record. May look on CDAC portal Sanction letter 11(2)/2005- http:/www.cdac.in HCC(TDL) dated 06.01.2010.
7. Shri. M D Kulkarni, Programme No such document available on Co-ordinator- GIST, CDAC who record. May look on CDAC portal had submitted the project http:/www.cdac.in proposal "Indian Language Computing Initiative : National Roll Out Plan - Phase II"
On a perusal of the above reply, it was found to be pointwise. However, official contact details and designations of the above persons as available can be given instead of directing the appellant to the website of the respondent.
Decision:
In the interest of justice, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply as discussed during the hearing, within 7 days of the receipt of this order. The CPIO shall provide a categorical reply for each point regarding contact details and designation rather than directing him to the website.. The appellant is also advised to exercise his right to information in a responsible manner and refrain from filling multiple RTI applications involving the same issue.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) 4 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 5