Central Information Commission
Room No. 5, Club Building, Near Post Office
Old J.N.U. Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel No: 26161997
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2010/000333
Name of the Appellant : Shri Harish Kumar Aggrawal
(The Appellant was not present)
Name of the Public Authority :
Indian Grassland & Fodder Research
Institute, Jhansi, U.P.
Represented by Dr. K.A. Singh,
Director, Shri A.K. Chaturvedi PS to
CPIO and Shri A.K. Saxena, Sr. T.O.
The matter was heard on : 22.9.2010.
ORDER
Shri Harish Kumar Aggarwal, hereinafter known as Appellant, filed an
application dated 11.11.2009, seeking information on 22 points under the
provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, from the CPIO, Indian Grassland & Fodder
Research Institute (IGFRI), Jhansi, U.P. On not getting the requisite
information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal before Shri K.A. Singh,
Director/FAA, IGFRI. The FAA vide his order dated 16.1.2010 decided 4
appeals of Shri H.K. Aggrawal covering 96 points for information. In his order,
the FAA has mentioned that CPIO was already in the process of
collecting/Xeroxing information as available in various records and he advised
the Appellant to deposit the requisite cost so that information is dispatched to
him well in time. It may be mentioned that CPIO had asked the Appellant to
deposit Rs.3,000/ in the present matter towards deputation of an assistance for
4 days towards the cost of Xeroxing etc. In the first instance it is clarified that
CPIO cannot ask for cost towards manpower. The CPIO, has, therefore,
erred in demanding the additional fee towards manpower, he can only ask for
fee as per the RTI Rules.
During the hearing the Respondents submits that the FAA in his order
dated 16.1.2010 had already mentioned that the CPIO was in the process of
collection/Xeroxing the information and now the information as per RTI
application has already been sent to the Appellant vide letter dated 18.9.2010.
After hearing the Respondent, the Commission finds that requisite
information has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 18.9.2010.
Though the information has been provided to the Appellant after a lapse of
considerable time, the Commission finds that the Appellant had sought
information on 96 points in 4 RTI Applications filed on different dates in quite
succession and the information was voluminous and had to be collected from
various records. In view of the above, the Commission is of the view that
considerable delay was reasonable; hence the Commission does not deem it fit
to initiate penalty proceedings under RTI Act. However, the PIO is hereby
cautioned to be more careful while dealing with the RTI Applications.
The matter is disposed of accordingly on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
18.10.2010