Case: Brig. (Retd.) Ujjal Dasgupta Vs Centre for Development of Advanced Computing [CDAC]. Central Information Commission
| Judges | Annapurna Dixit, I.C. |
| Issue | Right to Information |
| Judgement Date | May 04, 2009 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
Decision: Background 1. The RTI application was filed on 30.06.2008 with the CPIO, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing [hereinafter referred to as 'CDAC'] seeking information with respect to the ANVESHAK software developed for R&AW, by CDAC, Pune. The information sought by the Appellant pertained to the software for the period between 2003 to 2006 and were as follows: i. Whether the software was developed at the vendor''s premises, if so whether the software was conveyed to the vendor''s premises under arrangements of the vendor; ii. Storage media [CDs/Floppy disks/pendrives etc] used to transport the software to the vendor''s premises; iii. Number of such storage media and of what capacity can contain the uninstalled software iv. Agency responsible for installing the software at user''s premises on user's systems was CDAC or the user themselves; v. Whether storage media containing the uninstalled software was handed over to the users after installation on the user's systems, or at anytime thereafter, or retained by CDAC engineers; vi. Whether the software was designed to work on a Server-Client mode in a over a LAN [Local Area Network] or on a Stand-Alone machine mode; vii. If designed to work on a Server-Client mode over a LAN, on which machine is the software installed viii. Whether the software increases in size upon being installed and size of the installed software; ix. Role of CDAC post installation of the software at user''s premises in as much as is there any continuing responsibility, if so, what and how is the same fulfilled 2. The Appellant filed a First Appeal before the Appellate Authority, Director, CDAC on 04.09.2008 upon non-receipt of any response from the CPIO on his RTI Application. When despite the passage of the stipulated time, as provided under RTI Act 2005, no reply was received by the Appellant from the First Appellate Authority also, the Appellant filed an APPEAL before the CIC on 16.10.2008. In his Appeal the Appellant reiterated his RTI request while reasoning that the information sought had a bearing on his life and personal liberty since he had been arrested and has been in judicial custody since 20.07.2006. He argued that the charges leveled against him cannot be rebutted in the Court of law, by him without the information as sought vide the RTI request. The Appellant in his appeal furthermore submitted that the information sought by him is not exempt under provisions of the Section 8(1)(a), (b) and (h) of the RTI Act 2005. 3. The CPIO, CDAC responded vide letter No. P:LEGAL:RTI-24:2008:75 on 18.10.2008 denying information to the Appellant pertaining to the ANVESHAK Software developed by CDAC under provisions of Section 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act 2005. The Appellant filed an appeal on 03.11.2008 again before the First Appellate Authority challenging the CPIO's communication dated 18.10.2008. The Appellant stated in his Appeal that he had sought information pertaining to only factual issues with respect to the software and not the data contained therein. It was further stated by the Appellant that CDAC being the developmental agency, was approached by him as the appropriate authority to answer the queries, none of which impinged on the developer-client relationship. The documents being 19 pages and 3 pages showing the presence of the keyword 'ANVESHAK' allegedly recovered from the unused cluster area and stack area of the office laptop and residence computer of the Appellant formed the basis of the charges framed against the Appellant. The Appellant explained that the ANVEHSAK software relating to a data base management system is used for storage and retrieval of data collected by RAW. However the populated contents can only be accessed from the database by first invoking the software which has to be made functional, by an authorised user on the LAN with a valid user ID & password. The Appellant further stated that the documents have been denied to him and the same have not even been submitted in the Court, hence the... |
To continue reading
Request your trial