Central Information Commission
Rajesh Kumar vs Indian Institute Of Horticultural ... on 26 October, 2022
CIC/IIOHR/A/2021/129225
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/IIOHR/A/2021/129225
In the matter of:
Rajesh Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
ICAR- Indian Institute of
Horticultural Research,
Hesaraghatta Lake Post,
Bengaluru- 560089
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 06.11.2020
CPIO replied on : Not on Record
First Appeal filed on : 15.03.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 30.03.2021
Second Appeal received on : 23.07.2021
Date of Hearing : 20.10.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent (Shri. Varun.-Network Engineer, NIC Bangalore,
informed the bench that the Appellant did not come)
Respondent: Shri. Gurunath Gouda, CPIO & Chief Administrative Officer,
(Sr.Grade), Indian Institute of Horticulture Research (ICAR), participated in
the hearing through video conference from NIC Koramangala
Page 1 of 7
CIC/IIOHR/A/2021/129225
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 06.11.2020 seeking information on the following four points:
Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.03.2021. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.03.2021, informed as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of non- receipt of information from the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing despite being served the hearing notice.Page 2 of 7
CIC/IIOHR/A/2021/129225 The Respondent submitted that information with respect to point 1 of the instant RTI Application has been furnished to the Appellant vide reply dated 05.03.2021 and the contents of the same are as under:
The Respondent further submitted that information with respect to rest of the points could not be provided to the Appellant as the said information is extremely voluminous and scattered and furnishing the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority and the same will attract section 7(9) of the RTI Act. He further added that copies of the bills cannot be furnished because it is in the form of small slips and so as to make a xerox copy, leaves of the bill book will have to be torn off and that will spoil the records of the public authority since there are about 30 such booklets. However, an explanation with respect to the remaining points has been furnished vide written submission dated 14.10.2022.
Upon being queried by the Commission, regarding the delay in furnishing the initial reply to which the Respondent submitted that due to COVID pandemic the Respondent's office was working with the staggered and skeletal attendance therefore the reply to RTI Application could not be sent in prescribed time.
A written submission has been received by the Commission, from Shri. Gurunatha Gouda Harakangi, CPIO & Chief Administrative Officer (Sr. Grade), Indian Institute of Horticulture Research (ICAR), vide letter dated 14.10.2022 wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:Page 3 of 7
CIC/IIOHR/A/2021/129225 A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri. G.G. Harakangi, CPIO & Chief Administrative Officer (SG), Indian Institute of Horticulture Research (ICAR) vide letter dated 14.10.2022, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:Page 4 of 7
CIC/IIOHR/A/2021/129225 Page 5 of 7 CIC/IIOHR/A/2021/129225 Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that Respondent has furnished the readily available information to the Appellant, i.e for point 1 of the RTI Application. However, the delay in responding to the instant RTI Application is condoned on the basis of the explanation furnished by the Respondent. The Commission further observes that the information with respect to the rest of the points of the instant RTI Application are voluminous & scattered, which requires collection & collation of the data which would divert the time and resources of the public authority in providing all. Hence directing the Respondent to provide the said information would attract section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. However, the Respondent has furnished an adequate explanation for the same vide written submissions dated 14.10.2022.
In view of the above, the Commission is unable to provide any relief to the Appellant in the instant matter.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 25.10.2022 Page 6 of 7 CIC/IIOHR/A/2021/129225 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru- 560089
2. The Central Public Information Officer ICAR- Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru- 560089
3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Page 7 of 7