Central Information Commission
Yagneshbhai Maganbhai Patel vs National Dairy Research Institute ... on 7 September, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NDRES/A/2017/141980
Yagneshbhai Maganbhai Patel
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO/CPRO
National Dairy Development
Board, Ismaile Nagar, Gamdi,
Anand, Gujarat - 388001. ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 16.04.2016
CPIO reply : 26.04.2016
First Appeal : 17.05.2016
FAA Order : 26.07.2016
Second Appeal : 18.10.2016
Date of hearing : 30.08.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 16.04.2016 sought copies of letters communicating the approval for release of funds for administrative purpose in respect of Valsad Jilla Sahkari Milk Federation from the National Diary Development Board of India from 2000 onwards till the date of filing of the present RTI application along with copies of proposals submitted by the Valsad Jilla Sahkari Milk Federation to the NDDB for this purpose. The CPIO replied on 26.04.2016. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO and filed first appeal on 26.07.2016. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal by virtue of its order dated 26.07.2016. Aggrieved with the non-supply of Page 1 of 3 the desired information from the respondent authority, the appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 18.10.2016.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri Ch T V S Murthy,
Deputy General Manager cum PIO,
National Dairy Development Board
During the hearing, the respondent APIO submitted that they had provided the requisite reply vide their letter dated 26.04.2016 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 26.07.2016. The replies furnished to the appellant are just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed. The respondent PIO further submitted that all the information was provided to the appellant.
The appellant submitted that he received documents containing only 120 pages from the respondent authority in the present case.
On perusal of the relevant case records, it was noted by the Commission that proper reply was not provided to the appellant. A revised reply needs to be provided to the appellant in the present case.
The respondent PIO further submitted during the hearing that the sought for information is voluminous in nature and scattered in various government records.
The respondent CPIO is directed to fix a joint inspection of relevant records under his personal supervision on a mutually convenient date and at mutually convenient time and place. Based on the joint inspection, certified copies of records as selected by the appellant are to be provided then and there to the appellant free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act. The action is to be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Page 2 of 3After the Joint Inspection is over, a report on the Joint Inspection signed by the respondent CPIO, duly countersigned by the appellant with his remark(s), if any, is to be submitted within 7 days thereafter to the Commission for perusal and record.
With the above observation/direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
Amitava Bhattacharyya (अ मताभ भ टाचाय)
Information Commissioner ( सूचना आयु त )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
Ajay Kumar Talapatra (अजय कु मार तलपा )
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 / [email protected]
दनांक / Date
Page 3 of 3