Central Information Commission
Sandeep Kumar Gupta vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 28 June, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क ीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गं
गनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई िद ी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/ICARH/A/2018/109093/00930
File no.: CIC/ICARH/A/2018/109093
In the matter of:
Sandeep Kumar Gupta
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi - 110 001
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 20/10/2017 CPIO replied on : Not on Record First appeal filed on : 02/12/2017
First Appellate Authority order : 19/12/2017 Second Appeal dated : 26/12/2017 Date of Hearing : 28/06/2019 Date of Decision : 28/06/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Dr Jyoti Misri, Principal Scientisy & CPIO along with S K Sinha, Under Secretary & CPIO.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information in the context of enquiry report submitted by the Committee constituted under the chairmanship of Dr. A.K. Misra, VC MAFSU Nagpur in the matter of signing of Agreement with M/s Arsh Priotech for transfer of technology:1
1. Certified copy of the documents showing the date on which the enquiry report was put up before the President, ICAR/Union Minister of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.
2. Certified copy of the documents showing the date on which the enquiry report was put up before the Secretary, ICAR.
3. Certified copy of the report dated 10 January, 2017 mentioned in the enquiry report.
4. Certified copy of the documents containing action taken on the enquiry report.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present to plead his case despite duly served notice vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED032934366IN dated 10.06.2019.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was provided to the appellant by the First Appellate Authority on 19.12.2017.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that there is no CPIO's reply on record. On a query by the Commission as to why no reply was provided by the CPIO, the CPIO submitted that since the subject matter of the RTI application was in relation to an enquiry which was pending, there was a delay in preparing a reply and while preparing such reply, the appellant had filed his first appeal and hence no reply was provided by the CPIO, though the FAA passed orders. The Commission expresses its surprise at the fact of the CPIO not providing a reply on time , as at least an interim reply could have been given timely.
It is noted that the FAA in his order had claimed exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. On a query as to whether the enquiry process has been completed as on date or not, the CPIO submitted that the enquiry has been completed.
Decision:
In view of the submissions of the CPIO, he is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide a revised, point-wise reply to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act and the records available with him, within a period of 2 File no.: CIC/ICARH/A/2018/109093 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The Commission issues a warning to the CPIO to remain careful in future and ensure that a timely reply is provided to every RTI application within the timeline prescribed under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
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
3