CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001131/11916
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001131
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Tarun Kumar Roy
K-Block, Gangotri Vihar,
Delhi-i 10053.
Respondent : Mr. Jay Chanda
CPIO
University of Delhi
Asstt. Registrar University of
Delhi Main Campus, Delhi- 10007.
RTI application filed on : 04/01/2010
PIO replied : 29/01/2010
First appeal filed on : 08/02/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 08/03/2010
Second Appeal received on : 29/04/2010
Notice of hearing sent on : 09/03/2011
Hearing held on : 08/04/2011
Information Sought:
1- With respect to the information (Para 2 of the letter dated 27/08/2009 of Prof C.R. Babu)
provided by the PlO, University of De hi vide letter Ref. No. Info/OA/1096!2009!510 dated 5/9/2009,
and the Guidelines for Sponsored Research Projects (University of Delhi) vide Executive Council
Resolution No.134 dated 1′ -11-1997) applicable to the Biodiversity Parks Programme (Yamuna
Biodiversity park avide Ref.No.lnfoIOA!163412009/42523 dated 15th/l7 January 2009 provided by the
PlO. University of Delhi, please provide the following information”
(a) Name of the Project In-charge (P1) completed the Project Initiation.
(I) Name of the concerned Department where the proposal was submitted for clearance as per
la.2
(ii) Date of submission of the project proposal to the concerned Head cf the Department for
clearance as per la.2
(iii) Name of the Head of the Department had cleared the projects as per la:2 (iv) Date of
clearance of he projects la.2
(b) List of the members (name & designation) of the Research Projects Advisory Committee
(RPAC) as per la.3
(i) Name of the Chairperson of the RPAC as, per la.3
(ii) Name of the person submitted the financial statement and summary of the Projects to the
RPAC for clearance/ approval as per la.3.
(iii) Date of submission of the financial statement and summary of the Projects to the RPAC
for clearance/ approval as per la.3 –
(iv) Date of clearance/approval of the Projects by the person! Chairperson of the RPAC as per
la.3
(v) Name of the person/ university authority forwarded the final proposal to the funding agency
–DDAasperla.3.
(vi)Pate of approval of the project by the DDA and reference no. of the approval letter of DDA
Page 1 of 3
(c) Name of the Finance ,Officer provided the copy of the Rules for operating the Projects to
P1 as per lb.2
(I) Please provide a duly attested photocopy of the Rules.
(d) List of the members (with name & designation) of the Project Purchase Committee (PPC)
as per (lla)
(i) List of the members (with name & designation) of the Selection Committee as per 11a3
2. (a) With respect to the Executive Council Resolution No. 33 find 36 dated 29-04-2005 please
provide the following:
Ci) Reference of the provision of the Delhi University Ordinance under which the appointment of the
staffs for the posts of Ecologist/Wildlife Biologist and Field Biologist/Wildlife Biologist of the
Biodiversity Parks Programme has been approved by the EC vide Resolution No.33 and 36 dated 29-
04-20)5.
(ii) List of the other research projects of the University appointment of the staffs has been duly
approved by the EC
(b) The name of the following was present In the said EC meeting:
(i) Vice Chancellor
(ii) Pro-Vice Chancellor
(c) During the period 01/03/2002 till date the name (in chronological order) of the:
(i) Director, CEMDE
(ii) Project In-charge
Reply of the PIO:
The PIO has provided point wise information to the Appellant.
First Appeal:
The complete information was not provided.
Order of the FAA:
After considering the Appeal it is noticed that the PIO has provided available information on record to
the Appellant as made available by deemed PIOs – further- the PIO had requested the Appellant to
deposit Rs.86/- for 43 pages of information which the Appellant did not do.
Further the PIO allowed the Appellant for inspection of all the relevant files and documents with the
project incharge, Biodiversity Park Programme, which the Appellant did not avail. Therefore no relief
can be granted to the Appellant.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Complete information was not provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Tarun Kumar Roy;
Respondent : Mr. Jay Chanda, CPIO; Dr. Faiyaz, Scientist Incharge;
The Appellant has filed multiple RTI applications asking queries in various formats about Prof.
C. R. Babu of Delhi University and the Biodiversity Park. Numerous appeals have been heard by the
Commission and repeatedly all the information available has been provided to him. The Commission
specifically ordered two days inspection of the records in the premises of the Commission by the
Appellant. The Appellant appears to be continuing this matter though all records and information
available has been provided to him. The Commission in its decision no.
CIC/SG/A/2009/001841/4861Adjunct of 09/10/2009 had recorded, “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
Page 2 of 3
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.”
The Appellant claims that all the files and records have not been shown to him. The Commission notes
that in another decision CIC/AD/A/2010/000442 of 04/05/2010 another bench had noted that the
Appellant is seeking information to settle some old scores with Prof. Babu/Delhi University and is
using RTI as a forum for this purpose.
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
08 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SM)
Page 3 of 3