Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No. 3556/IC(A)/2008
F. No. CIC/PB/A/2008/01291
CIC/PB/C/2008/00451
CIC/PB/C/2008/00966
Dated, the 31st December, 2008
Name of the Appellant : Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal
Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of Commerce & Industry
1
Facts
:
1. The cases were heard on 29.12.2008 in absence of the appellant.
2. The appellant has submitted a separate appeal and two complaints against
the decisions of the CPIO of the respondent. For the sake of convenience all the
petitions are examined together.
3. The CPIO stated that the appellant has asked for different information through
various RTI applications, which have been replied and the information, as available,
has also been given. Yet, the appellant is not satisfied and alleged that the
information furnished to him is incomplete and misleading.
4. He also mentioned that in a matter of fraudulent registration of trade marks,
the respondent has issued a notice u/s 57 (4) of Trade Mark Act to the appellant and
sought explanation as to why the registration of trade mark in question should not be
cancelled. Since the appellant has grievances regarding the action taken against
him for violation of the provisions of the said Act, he has been resorting to the
provisions of the RTI Act for harassing the officials of the respondent.
If you don’t ask, you don’t get – Mahatma Gandhi
1
5. In the course of hearing, the details of information asked for and the replies
given by the CPIO were discussed. While the appellant has alleged that the
information furnished to him is misleading and incomplete, the CPIO stated that the
appellant has not specified as to which information has been refused to him.
Decision:
6. The CPIO has furnished a point-wise response and there is no denial of
information u/s 8 (1) of the Act. Since the respondent has initiated action against the
appellant for violation of the provisions concerning registration of trade marks, the
appellant has chosen to harass the officials in the garb of seeking information. As
the appellant has not responded to the notice for hearing, it is presumed that he is
no more interested in pursuing the matter.
7. All three cases are thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name and address of parties: 2
1. Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, M/s RMV Hardware Electricals, 13/303, Manu
Bhunja, Aligarh-202001, U.P.
2. Shri M. S. Dhakad, Director, Ministry of Commerce of Industry, Department of
Industrial Policy & Promotion, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.
3. Shri D.S. Bansod, Dy. Registrar & CPIO, Trade Marks Registry, Intellectual
Property Office Building, Plot No. 32, Sec. 14, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.
4. Shri U.L. Barve, Dy. Registrar & CPIO, Trade Marks Registry, Intellectual
Property Office Building, Near Untop Hill Head Post Office, S.M. Road, Untop
Hill, Mumbai-400037.
All men by nature desire to know – Aristotle
2