CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00365 dated 5.6.2006
Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19
Appellant: Shri Shyam Singh Thakur
Respondent: Deptt. of Science & Technology.
Facts:
Shri Shyam Singh Thakur of Shahpura, Bhopal applied to PIO, Deptt. of Science & Technology on 5.1.06 seeking the following information :
1. How many Projects on “Aapda Anusandhan” have been proposed and sanctioned, which will be getting financial assistance of the Govt. of India. Detailed information along with the name and amount be given.
2. On the basis of “Theory of uncertainty” that the simultaneous calculations of status and dynamics of nature cannot be done has been proved. No research can be scientific in absence of the mathematical principle. However, in this case if there is any principle, ‘fair use’ certificate may be given.
3. As per clause 9.2 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act of WTO within TRIPPS, ‘fair use’ has been defined. How many projects have been certified with ‘fair use’ as per the clarification of TRIPPS ?
4. If the policies at Sr. No. 2 & 3 have not been followed then all outcome of research becomes illegal. Keeping this in view why the FIR has not been registered with the police as the matter is of national security.
From the letter of Shri A.K.Barua, it is clear that by 26.12.2005 the concerned authority had full knowledge of this, yet why an FIR could not be registered, should be clarified. In response to this application vide his letter dated 3.2.06, Shri A.K.Barua, CPIO Deptt. of Science & Technology sent the following reply :
1. In reference to item No. 2 of your application, it is informed that the information asked for is not related to any theory. As far as “fair use” is concerned, it is used as per the Copyright Act of 1957, in which it has a very specific meaning. If any person uses the work of others with a copyright for educational and research purposes, it is not a violation of the original work. In all cases related to the implementation of the Copyright Act MoHRD is the nodal ministry. You are advised to contact the MoHRD in respect of item Nos. 2 & 3 of your application.
2. In light of the above, therefore, your suggestion at Sr. No. 4 does not merit any action.
Aggrieved, Shri Thakur moved a first appeal with the Jt. Secretary, Deptt. of Science & Technology on 12.4.06 stating that the information sought was in compliance with the policies of the Govt. of India of which the Deptt. of Science & Technology is a part, impediments had been placed in supply of information. In his orders of 28.3.06 Shri Sanjiv Nair, Appellate Authority and Jt. Secretary stated that whereas Shri Shyam Singh Thakur has sought information on Disaster Research on its fair use and infringement of copyright and the CPIO has stated in response that in matters concerning disaster research and copy right etc. the department had no role whatever, so the answers to the questions of appellant Shri Thakur were given as zero, in respect of questions 1 & 3, and questions 2 & 4 did not constitute information as defined in Sec 2(f).
In response to our appeal notice, issued by us on receiving the second appeal from appellant Shri Thakur on 25.5.06, Appellate Authority Shri Sanjiv Nair has responded as follows in a letter of 21.11.06:
(i) “No relief could be given to the applicant during the appeal filed against the order of the CPIO, DST because the issues raised were so generic and broad that it was difficult to pinpoint what exact information the applicant desired. For example, he had sought information on disaster research. There is no specific project/scheme, as far as information brought to my notice, about the disaster research being carried out by DST. Further, disaster research is such a vast area which encompasses early warning system, mitigation exercises and communication system. Therefore, the appeal was disallowed.
(ii) The second issue on which he wanted information was the principle of uncertainty. There is a vast field of literature on uncertainty both in the fields of science and economics, and other fields and it was difficult to comprehend what exactly could be given to him on uncertainty. The ground work in this area will have to be done by the applicant because of the vast quantity of literature that is available and, as an appellate officer; no specific direction could be issued for providing information.”
Appellant’s rejoinder to this dated 1.12.06 has been taken on file. He has stated as follows:
1. In respect of question No. 1, the Appellate Authority in his orders dated 3.2.06 and 28.3.06 informed that the Govt. of India has not been supporting any of the projects, hence the information is zero.
2. The clarification given by the Joint Secretary MoS&T in respect of the “Theory of uncertainty” violates the proposition of the “vision on the Science & Technology, Serial No. C & D” announced by the Hon’ble President of India on 25.1.06.
3. In respect of the “fair use” as defined in TRIPPS the reply is Zero. This amounts to contempt of TRIPPS by a Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India.
4. RTI is a Civil Right whereas FIR is used to curb the criminal activities of the criminals. RTI is essentially applicable to the officers/officials including the Central Information Commission.
5. Since I have filed an affidavit, I will request the Commission to arrange the replies of the respondents in the affidavit for the right of equality as is applicable to both the parties.
The appeal was heard by us on 4.12.06. Following are present:
1. Sh. Shyam Singh Thakur, appellant
2. Sh. Rakesh Bhartiya Dy.Secy. M/o Sc. & Tech.
3. Sh. Davinder Nath, Dy.Secy. Deptt. of Sc.& Tech.
4. Sh. N.K.Gupta, U.S., Deptt. of Sc. & Tech.
It was pointed out to respondents that u/s 6(3)(1) of the Act, if they receive an application requesting information which is held by another public authority, they are required to transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately on such transfer. Moreover, such transfer was to be effective in no case later than 5 days from the date of receipt of the application. The Ministry has indeed asked the applicant to approach the HRD Ministry for
information against point 2 & 3 the answer to which is are also related Q. No. 4 but it was required to transfer the case as provided in the Act.
During the hearing appellant Shri Thakur argued that as we have pointed out in relation to questions 2 & 3, so in the case at Point 1, the department is required either to answer and provide the information sought or
to transfer it to the concerned public authority. Neither has been done.
DECISION NOTICE
As agreed by appellant, the information sought against point No.1, refers to all departments of Govt. of India. If this information was not available with Dep't. of Science & Technology Shri Thakur’s application should have been referred to the concerned authority/authorities that could have provided him the information he had sought. However, we find on a simple reading of the application that the information sought seems to have been directed specifically to the department to which it is addressed. The department has, therefore, rightly stated “it has no such programme in operation in its jurisdiction”.
With regard to Points 2 & 3, respondents have admitted that because this was a new case, they have neglected to transfer it but simply referred the appellant to the appropriate authority. Although there is no penalty u/s 6(3), in such matters, the Department is cautioned that on receiving applications of this nature of which it feels a part pertains to another public authority, this is to be transferred to the concerned public authority within 5 days of the receipt of the application. In the instant case the application is now referred to the CPIO, Ministry of Human Resources Department to provide applicant Shri Thakur the information sought by him in regard to points 2, 3 & 4 of his application.
Announced in hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
22.1.2007
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. The copy file together with the application is transferred to the Ministry of Human Resource Development for examination and
disposal within the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005
(L.C.Singhi)
Addl. Registrar
22.1.2007
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00365 dated 5.6.2006
Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19
Appellant: Shri Shyam Singh Thakur
Respondent: Deptt. of Science & Technology.
Facts:
Shri Shyam Singh Thakur of Shahpura, Bhopal applied to PIO, Deptt. of Science & Technology on 5.1.06 seeking the following information :
1. How many Projects on “Aapda Anusandhan” have been proposed and sanctioned, which will be getting financial assistance of the Govt. of India. Detailed information along with the name and amount be given.
2. On the basis of “Theory of uncertainty” that the simultaneous calculations of status and dynamics of nature cannot be done has been proved. No research can be scientific in absence of the mathematical principle. However, in this case if there is any principle, ‘fair use’ certificate may be given.
3. As per clause 9.2 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act of WTO within TRIPPS, ‘fair use’ has been defined. How many projects have been certified with ‘fair use’ as per the clarification of TRIPPS ?
4. If the policies at Sr. No. 2 & 3 have not been followed then all outcome of research becomes illegal. Keeping this in view why the FIR has not been registered with the police as the matter is of national security.
From the letter of Shri A.K.Barua, it is clear that by 26.12.2005 the concerned authority had full knowledge of this, yet why an FIR could not be registered, should be clarified. In response to this application vide his letter dated 3.2.06, Shri A.K.Barua, CPIO Deptt. of Science & Technology sent the following reply :
1. In reference to item No. 2 of your application, it is informed that the information asked for is not related to any theory. As far as “fair use” is concerned, it is used as per the Copyright Act of 1957, in which it has a very specific meaning. If any person uses the work of others with a copyright for educational and research purposes, it is not a violation of the original work. In all cases related to the implementation of the Copyright Act MoHRD is the nodal ministry. You are advised to contact the MoHRD in respect of item Nos. 2 & 3 of your application.
2. In light of the above, therefore, your suggestion at Sr. No. 4 does not merit any action.
Aggrieved, Shri Thakur moved a first appeal with the Jt. Secretary, Deptt. of Science & Technology on 12.4.06 stating that the information sought was in compliance with the policies of the Govt. of India of which the Deptt. of Science & Technology is a part, impediments had been placed in supply of information. In his orders of 28.3.06 Shri Sanjiv Nair, Appellate Authority and Jt. Secretary stated that whereas Shri Shyam Singh Thakur has sought information on Disaster Research on its fair use and infringement of copyright and the CPIO has stated in response that in matters concerning disaster research and copy right etc. the department had no role whatever, so the answers to the questions of appellant Shri Thakur were given as zero, in respect of questions 1 & 3, and questions 2 & 4 did not constitute information as defined in Sec 2(f).
In response to our appeal notice, issued by us on receiving the second appeal from appellant Shri Thakur on 25.5.06, Appellate Authority Shri Sanjiv Nair has responded as follows in a letter of 21.11.06:
(i) “No relief could be given to the applicant during the appeal filed against the order of the CPIO, DST because the issues raised were so generic and broad that it was difficult to pinpoint what exact information the applicant desired. For example, he had sought information on disaster research. There is no specific project/scheme, as far as information brought to my notice, about the disaster research being carried out by DST. Further, disaster research is such a vast area which encompasses early warning system, mitigation exercises and communication system. Therefore, the appeal was disallowed.
(ii) The second issue on which he wanted information was the principle of uncertainty. There is a vast field of literature on uncertainty both in the fields of science and economics, and other fields and it was difficult to comprehend what exactly could be given to him on uncertainty. The ground work in this area will have to be done by the applicant because of the vast quantity of literature that is available and, as an appellate officer; no specific direction could be issued for providing information.”
Appellant’s rejoinder to this dated 1.12.06 has been taken on file. He has stated as follows:
1. In respect of question No. 1, the Appellate Authority in his orders dated 3.2.06 and 28.3.06 informed that the Govt. of India has not been supporting any of the projects, hence the information is zero.
2. The clarification given by the Joint Secretary MoS&T in respect of the “Theory of uncertainty” violates the proposition of the “vision on the Science & Technology, Serial No. C & D” announced by the Hon’ble President of India on 25.1.06.
3. In respect of the “fair use” as defined in TRIPPS the reply is Zero. This amounts to contempt of TRIPPS by a Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India.
4. RTI is a Civil Right whereas FIR is used to curb the criminal activities of the criminals. RTI is essentially applicable to the officers/officials including the Central Information Commission.
5. Since I have filed an affidavit, I will request the Commission to arrange the replies of the respondents in the affidavit for the right of equality as is applicable to both the parties.
The appeal was heard by us on 4.12.06. Following are present:
1. Sh. Shyam Singh Thakur, appellant
2. Sh. Rakesh Bhartiya Dy.Secy. M/o Sc. & Tech.
3. Sh. Davinder Nath, Dy.Secy. Deptt. of Sc.& Tech.
4. Sh. N.K.Gupta, U.S., Deptt. of Sc. & Tech.
It was pointed out to respondents that u/s 6(3)(1) of the Act, if they receive an application requesting information which is held by another public authority, they are required to transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately on such transfer. Moreover, such transfer was to be effective in no case later than 5 days from the date of receipt of the application. The Ministry has indeed asked the applicant to approach the HRD Ministry for
information against point 2 & 3 the answer to which is are also related Q. No. 4 but it was required to transfer the case as provided in the Act.
During the hearing appellant Shri Thakur argued that as we have pointed out in relation to questions 2 & 3, so in the case at Point 1, the department is required either to answer and provide the information sought or
to transfer it to the concerned public authority. Neither has been done.
DECISION NOTICE
As agreed by appellant, the information sought against point No.1, refers to all departments of Govt. of India. If this information was not available with Dep't. of Science & Technology Shri Thakur’s application should have been referred to the concerned authority/authorities that could have provided him the information he had sought. However, we find on a simple reading of the application that the information sought seems to have been directed specifically to the department to which it is addressed. The department has, therefore, rightly stated “it has no such programme in operation in its jurisdiction”.
With regard to Points 2 & 3, respondents have admitted that because this was a new case, they have neglected to transfer it but simply referred the appellant to the appropriate authority. Although there is no penalty u/s 6(3), in such matters, the Department is cautioned that on receiving applications of this nature of which it feels a part pertains to another public authority, this is to be transferred to the concerned public authority within 5 days of the receipt of the application. In the instant case the application is now referred to the CPIO, Ministry of Human Resources Department to provide applicant Shri Thakur the information sought by him in regard to points 2, 3 & 4 of his application.
Announced in hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
22.1.2007
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. The copy file together with the application is transferred to the Ministry of Human Resource Development for examination and
disposal within the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005
(L.C.Singhi)
Addl. Registrar
22.1.2007
No comments:
Post a Comment