CIC: RTI Applications are being filed for seeking clarifications on various policy matters of the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks - CIC: Relevant information can be placed in the public domain as per suo motu disclosure
20 Aug, 2022CIC: A number of RTI Applications are being filed for seeking clarifications on various policy matters of the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks - CIC: It will be in the best interest of O/o. CGPDTM to explore the viability of introducing/ updating orders/ circulars/ notifications involving policy matters and larger interest of stakeholders; and relevant information in that regard can be placed in the public domain in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo-motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act - CIC: This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.09.2021 seeking the following information;
1. “Please provide the list of orders and their copies issued by the O/o. CGPDTM on Patents and Designs office and are currently in force.
2. Please provide the relevant document taken into the consideration by the CGPDTM for issuing the office order CG/PO/2016/34 dated 03.06.2016 with special mentioning of the target of 30 files (15 New & 15 Amended) for Examiner and 45 FER and 30 Disposal for the controller.
3. Please provide the file noting and the remark for the approval of office order CG/PO/2016/34 dated 03.06.2016.
4. Please provide the name of all the stakeholders whose opinions were taken into consideration for office order CG/PO/2016/34 dated 03.06.2016. If any committee was constituted for the office order CG/PO/2016/34 dated 03.06.201
6, kindly provide the name of the chairperson along with its member and a copy of its recommendation.”
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.10.2021. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Kishor Kadbe, Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs/ CPIO present through video- conference.
The Appellant while narrating the contents of the RTI Application expressed his dissatisfaction on the ground that a copy of the relevant existing office orders along with notings on it and related correspondences have not been provided to him by the CPIO till date.
The CPIO at the outset reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 20.07.2022, relevant portion of which is reproduced below in verbatim –
“..(1). RTI application filed by Mr Sushil Kumar on 27/09/2021.
(2). The then CIPO marked the application for assistance of the concerned official u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act to Dr Amrendra Samal, Dy Controller of Patents and Designs.
(3). During the same period, then CPIO went on maternity leave. There was no new CIPO appointed in the transit period. Therefore, Dr Amrendra Samal, Dy Controller of Patents and Designs emailed the reply to applicant in respect of RTI question by email on 27/10/2021 which is within the time period of 30 days as per RTI Act.
(4). Applicant moved his appeal to FAA. On which FAA Dr Dinesh Patil gave the direction by Email dated 22/11/2021 to newly appointed CPIO Dr Suneeta Betgiri to reply the appellant as early as possible.
(5). On the direction of FAA, CPIO Dr Suneeta Betgiri disposed the RTI through RTI module on dated 24/11/2021 providing the information as given below to the applicant as per the said email dated 27/10/2021 of Dr Amrendra Samal and also attached the copy of said email.
"The para-wise reply to your RTI request CGPDT/R/E/21/00316 dated 27/09/2021 has already been made available to you by the concerned officer via email dated 27/10/2021. However, the same is again re-produced here:
1, Please provide the list of orders and their copies issued by the 0/0 CGPDTM on Patents and Designs office and are currently in force.
Reply: The information seeking lacks clarity. Not clear about technical orders/Administrative orders or both.
2. Please provide the relevant document taken into the consideration by the CGPDTM for issuing the office order CG/PO/2016/34 dated 03.06.2016 with special mentioning of the target of 30 files ( 15 New & 15 Amended) for Examiner and 45 FER and 30 Disposal for the controller.
Reply: No such relevant documents are available on record.
3. Please provide the file noting and the remark for the approval of office order CG/P0/2016/34 dated 03.06.2016.
Reply: No such noting is available on record.
4. Please provide the name of all the stakeholders whose opinions were taken into consideration for office order CG/PO/2016/34 dated 03.06.2016. If any committee was constituted for,the office order CG/PO/2016/34 dated 03.06.2016, kindly provide the name of the chairperson along with its member and a copy of its recommendation.
Reply: No such documents available on record."
(6). Accordingly, applicant was provided with the information to his RTI application timely on 27/10/2021 by email. Also newly appointed CPIO Dr Suneeta Betgiri disposed the RTI application through module on 24/11/2021 immediately as per the direction of FAA given through email dated 22/11/2021...”
The Appellant interjected to state that although he was in receipt of a vague and evasive reply of the CPIO dated 24.11.2021 wherein the Respondent have simply claimed non-availability of records; however, the fact remains that there was a long delay in responding to the RTI application which is in violation of RTI Act. He furthermore contested that such copies of the orders entail the interest/stake of 800 employees; therefore, these should be shared with the Appellant and also the same should be made public in order to maintain transparency and probity.
In rebuttal to Appellant’s contention, the CPIO explained that although a copy of office order CG/PO/2016/34 dated 03.06.2016 is available in their records and which he, at the behest of the Commission agreed to share with the Appellant. However, a copy of the notings/correspondences and other related orders as sought by the Appellant are not available with them. The CPIO added that under suo-moto disclosure, the Respondent organization as per the norms has already uploaded the relevant office orders on their official website. The Appellant out rightly denied the said statement of the CPIO regarding availability of relevant office order on the website of CGPDTM.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after scrutinizing the contents of the RTI Application arrives at the conclusion that the information sought by the Appellant is unspecific and indeterminate which concededly do not conform to Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of RTI Act. Further, the Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that such information apparently runs into multiple pages; collation and compilation of which would divert the resources of public authorities and thus, cannot be divulged in view of Section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
“35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing………A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.” (Emphasis Supplied)
Further, the Commission hereby after considering the detailed explanation of the CPIO regarding the reasons for delay in reply hereby condones the same for want of malafide intention on the part of the CPIO.
Now, upon insistence of the Appellant and in furtherance of hearing proceedings, the CPIO is directed to retrace their office records and provide a revised point wise categorical reply along with a copy of office order CG/PO/2016/34 dated 03.06.2016 and other related information including noting/correspondences which will suffices the information sought by the Appellant in the RTI Application. In the event, the information sought against any point/s was not available in their office records then a categorical statement to this effect in writing may be reflected in the revised reply of the CPIO.
The above said reply and information should be provided by the CPIO free of cost to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
ADVISORY
A pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar nature of cases dealt with by this bench in the recent past is that a number of RTI Applications are being filed for seeking clarifications on various policy/ procedure matters /office orders of Public Authorities. It will be in the best interest of O/o. CGPDTM to explore the viability of introducing/updating orders/circulars/notifications involving policy matters and larger interest of stakeholders; and relevant information in that regard can be placed in the public domain in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This will also relieve the public authority from the burden of RTI Applications which are filed for merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record.
In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani
Information Commissioner
Citation: Sushil Kumar v. Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) in File No: CIC/CGPDT/A/2021/663596, Date of Decision : 21/07/2022