Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000535 dated 26-08-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 3 March 2010
Name of the Appellant : Dr. Supratic Chakraborty
Microelectronics Division,
Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics,
1/AF, Bidhannagar, Kolkata - 700 064.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Microelectronics Division,
Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics,
1/AF, Bidhannagar, Kolkata - 700 064.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri Bhattacharya,
(ii) Shri Devi Prasad,
(iii) Shri Rao,
(iv) Shri Gupta,
(v) Shri P. Mukherjee,
(vi) Smt. Bharti Chauhan
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 26 August
2008, requested the CPIO for a number of information concerning the Shah
Institute of Nuclear Physics (SINP). In his reply dated 31 October 2008, the
CPIO provided all the information except one which he claimed was not
available. Not satisfied with the response of the CPIO, he preferred an
appeal on 5 November 2008. The Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal
on 25 November 2008 in which he directed the CPIO to provide the specific
information sought by the Appellant. Following this direction, the Director
of the SINP wrote to the Appellant on 20 January 2009 providing further
information against his queries. In his second appeal to the CIC, the
Appellant has stated that he is yet to get the desired information against
most of his queries.
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Kolkata studio of the NIC while the Respondents were present
both in the Kolkata and Mumbai Studios. We heard their submissions. It is
CIC/SM/A/2009/000535
clear from the account given by the CPIO that the various bylaws and
recruitment rules of the SINP had been approved only by the Governing
Council of the Institute and not separately by the Government of India
(DAE). All that the Appellant had sought were the copies of such documents
as approved by the Government of India and he is dissatisfied since neither
the CPIO nor the Appellate Authority had explained to him clearly if the
documents provided by them had actually been approved by the
Government of India (DAE) or only by the Governing Council. Therefore, we
now direct the CPIO to write to the Appellant within 10 working days from
the receipt of this order stating clearly if the bylaws framed after 1992 and
the recruitment norms modified from time to time had received the
Government of India (DAE) approval or this had only been approved by the
Governing Council of the Institute which the SINP deemed to be the
approval of the Central Government.
4. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed off.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied
against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the
CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2009/000535