CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002736/6294
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002736
Appellant : Mr. Tarun K. Roy
3/3A, Street No. 5
K-Block, Gangotri Vihar,
Delhi-110053
Respondent : Mr. Jay Chanda
Public Information Officer &
Assistant Registrar,
University of Delhi,
Main Campus, Delhi-110007
RTI application filed on : 12/08/2009
PIO replied : 05/09/2009
First Appeal filed on : 07/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 14/10/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 26/10/2009
Information sought:
3 (a) Photocopy of the original proposal submitted to the Academic Council for consideration
of conferment of the title "Professor Emeritus" of the following Professors:
(i) Prof. Gopi Chand Narang
(ii) Prof. Andre Beteille
(b) Date of conferment of the title "Professor Emeritus" to the above Professors at 3(a) (i) &
(ii).
PIO's Reply:
The information sought by the Appellant was referred to the Sections concerned. The information
sought by the Appellant was referred to the Sections concerned. The information as provided by the
Prof. C. R. Babu, Project In-charge, Biodiversity Parks Programme, Dy. Finance Officer and
'Establishment Branch (Non-Teaching) of the University was enclosed.
The Appellant was said to inspect the relevant documents/papers at a mutually convenient date and
time with Prof. C. R. Babu, Project In-Charge, Biodiversity Parks Programme, University of Delhi,
Delhi-07 on telephone no. 011-27666237 on or before 30/09/2009.
(No Copy of information in file)
Grounds for First Appeal:
Point- wise information and relevant documents were not provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
FAA mentioned that information was provided to the Appellant by PIO. The PIO had allowed
inspection to the appellant which he did not avail. The Appellant had not deposited the cost of the 115
pages of information as demanded by the PIO.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Information and relevant documents in respect of Point No. 3(a)(i),(ii) &(b) were not provided.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Tarun K. Roy;
Respondent: Mr. Jay Chanda, Public Information Officer & Assistant Registrar;
The Commission had in its order CIC/SG/A/2009/001841/4861Adjunct decided on 9 October 2009:
“An inspection has been done on 08/10/2009 and 09/10/2009 where the public authority has
brought a total of 68 files relating to the Biodiversity Park’s project’s complete record. They have also
brought two files relating to the Appellant from the Dy. Registrar (legal)’s office. All these files were
inspected by the Appellant. The Appellant believes that there should be some more files. However,
Prof. CR Babu, Project in-charge of Biodiversity Parks Program has given an Affidavit that the entire
record consists of 68 files. His Affidavit also includes a list of the files. Both these are being given to
the Appellant.
The Appellant has certain comments which are being attached to this order. The Appellant has in the
last two years sought information regarding the Biodiversity park through over 50 RTI Applications
and has repeatedly been asking for fairly voluminous information. Hence, the inspection was ordered
on the two days at the Commission’s office where all relevant records were brought by the public
authority. The Appellant wanted to use a pen during the inspection and he was allowed to use only a
pencil by the order of the Commission. The Commission has realized that the modus operandi of the
Appellant of filing multiple RTI Applications has the effect of nearly paralyzing a project of
significant scientific importance. The Commission is now sure that any legitimate information need of
the Appellant has been adequately taken care of.
The Appellant has identified some pages for which he wants photocopies which would be provided to
him before 15/10/2009.
The following details will not be provided to the Appellant out of the records sought by him since the
respondents have raised objection about these being an intrusion on privacy of the employees:
1. Details of families of employees and their addresses
2. Health certificates
3. Home town declarations and addresses of candidates
The Commission treats all applications of the Appellant regarding the Biodiversity Park and appeals
which are pending as closed with this order. The Right to Information is a sacred fundamental right but
cannot be allowed to be used to destroy organizations. Citizens who use it must do it with some sense
of responsibility and not use it as instruments of destruction.”
In view of this since all possible records have been shown to the appellant and information provided.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
06 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj