FAA: Appellant was seeking further clarifications on the information given and was asking for reasons for certain activities - CIC: This could have been denied on the ground of seeking additional information which was not sought in the RTI application
15 Feb, 2023Information Sought
The appellant has sought the following information:
1 What was the date of commencement of the project titled 'Novel Insight of Antidiabetic and Antioxidant potential of Raphanus sativus and Ficus religiosa' (Project No. 02(0071/12/EMR-ll) at Department of Chemistry, University of Allahabad?
2 What was the total amount given for fellowship and HRA in the above mentioned project?
3 What was the total amount given for arrears in fellowship w.e.f. 01/10/2014 in the above project
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal has stated that he did not get the proper information on point no. 3 of his application. Also, he was not seeking clarifications but only asking about information regarding e-mail details. However, he was not present at the VC venue despite due service of notice on 16.11.2022 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED235382671IN. The CPIO reiterated the contents of the point wise reply given.
Observations:
From a perusal of the record, it is noted that the CPIO had given an apt point wise reply to the appellant, which was upheld by the FAA. The FAA also stated that the appellant was seeking further clarifications on the information given and was asking for reasons for certain activities under the project. It is also noted that the CPIO sent a letter to the appellant dated 24.10.2022 containing some further details about the project and the project grant. From all the material on record, it is clear that a proper point wise reply was given initially and the appellant has indeed sought clarifications and further information in the first appeal which is not part of the RTI application. While the FAA denied the information on the grounds of seeking clarifications, this could have been denied on the ground of the appellant seeking additional information which was not sought in the RTI application.
Be that as it may, the Commission finds no flaw in the reply of the CPIO and FAA and upholds the same, holding that additional information which was not in the RTI application cannot be raised in the first appeal.
Decision:
In view of the above, no further action is warranted.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: S N Chatterji v. Human Resource Development Group, CSIR, File No. CIC/CSIRD/A/2021/135589, Date of Decision: 18/11/2022