CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.2952/ICPB/2008
F. No. PBA/2008/00346
October 22, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19
[Hearing on 13.10.2008 at 5.00 p.m.]
Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal
Public authority: Trade Mark Registry
Mr. U.L. Baru, Asst. Registrar & PIO
Parties Present: For Respondent:
Mr. U.L. Baru, Asst. Registrar
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal-Appellant
FACTS
:
The appellant has sought information under RTI Act by his letter dated
15.3.2007 addressed to the Information Officer, Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai
by enclosing the fee in the form of postal order. The PIO vide letter dated
23.3.2007 rejected the application since postal order is not the mode of payment
of fees at that point of time. Now postal order has also been included as payment
of fees for RTI application. However, while disposing of this appeal, the PIO has
not provided the particulars of first AA. However, the appellant has filed appeal
after four months before the first AA and the first AA has given a speaking order
by which he has directed the PIO to accept the application and provide reply
within time frame, since lot of time has been wasted in returning this papers to
the appellant. The PIO has provided some reply to the appellant on 21.8.2007,
in respect of the RTI application dated 11.01.2007 in which he has also made a
passing comments that application dated 15.3.2007 is not traceable in Mumbai
office and therefore stated this paper is not related to him and it is related to
Delhi office. This case was taken up for hearing on 13.10.2008, which was
attended by the appellant in person and PIO also represented from Trade Marks
Registry, Mumbai.
DECISION:
2. I have gone through the RTI application and other replies received in this
connection.
On the face of the records, I would like to indicate the PIO has not been
following the provisions of the Act in the strict sense. While giving reply he has to
provide the particulars of first AA. Moreover, when the First AA has directed him
1
to give reply he has simply indicated the file is not traceable in his office and the
matter is concerned with the Trade Marks Registry, Delhi. Considering these
facts and circumstances, the CPIO is directed to collect this information from the
PIO of Trade Marks Registry, Delhi under the provisions of section 5(5) of RTI
Act by which the PIO of Delhi office would become the Deemed CPIO. He
should provide the particulars as it is available in the records within 15 days from
the date of receipt of this direction. While providing reply, the PIO is also
directed to give the particulars of first AA in case if the appellant wanted to file
any appeal before the first AA. Thereafter if the appellant is not satisfied he is at
liberty to approach the Commission once again.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Mr. U.L. Baru, Asst. Registrar & PIO, Trade Mark Registry, Intellectual
Property Bhavan, Near Antop Hill, Head Post Office, S.M. Road, Antop
Hill, Mumbai-400037
2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, R.M.V. H/W & Electricals, 13/303, Mamu
Bhanja Street, Aligarh-202001
2