Central Information Commission
A S Gill vs Central Agroforestry Research ... on 23 April, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सच
ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/CAFRI/A/2018/154710/03258
File no.: CIC/CAFRI/A/2018/154710
In the matter of:
A S Gill
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
ICAR- Central Agroforestry Research Institute
Near Pahuj Dham, Gwalior Road, Jhansi - 284 003
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 22/02/2018 CPIO replied on : 22/03/2018 First appeal filed on : 12/05/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 11/07/2018 Second Appeal dated : 30/08/2018 Date of Hearing : 21/04/2020 Date of Decision : 21/04/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Heard over phone
Respondent: Dr Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientist & CPIO, heard over phone. Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information regarding NRCAF, Jhansi Research Project AF 03.4 entitled "Studies on growth and biomass production of MPTS under different management practices (P.Rai and G.R. Rao)"
1. Copy of RPF I, II and III
2. Layout plan with replication and treatment allocation
3. List of publication, if any.
Grounds for Second Appeal 1 The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to him. He further submitted that the information about any project is to be maintained by the organisation and hence the desired information should be provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 22.03.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO on both of the points was not proper. On point no. 1, the CPIO in his reply has simply stated that the RPF I,II & III cannot be provided as per ICAR guidelines, 2014, neither any exemption was claimed nor it was explained as to why the information cannot be provided or which of the guidelines prevents him from giving the information.. The CPIO, is therefore, directed to give a revised reply on this point explaining as to why information cannot be provided and he should note that under the RTI Act, only such information cannot be disclosed which falls under any of the exemption clauses mentioned in Section 8 of the RTI Act. In case, the CPIO is not able to justify the non- disclosure of the desired information under Section 8, then the CPIO is directed to provide complete information to the appellant. With regard to point no. 2, the CPIO's reply that the information is not available in PME Section is not proper as under the RTI Act, the CPIO is bound to seek assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from the holder of the information or to transfer the same u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to the appropriate department and provide the relevant information to its seeker. Since it was not done at the relevant time, the CPIO should collect the information from its custodian and provide the same to the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide a revised reply to the appellant as discussed above within a period of 15 days after the lockdown is lifted under intimation to the Commission.2
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date 3