In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SG/A/2011/001730
CIC/SG/A/2011/001724
Date of Decision : July 27, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Ms. Gulshan Khatun (CIC/SG/A/2011/001730)
H.No. C 180, J J Colony,
Bawana Date of Hearing : 27/7/2011
Delhi 110 039
The Appellant was not present.
Shri Abbas (CIC/SG/A/2011/001724)
H.No. C 180, J J Colony,
Bawana Date of Hearing : 28/7/2011
Delhi 110 039
Respondents
Office of the District Election Officer
District North West, Kanjawala
Delhi
Represented by: Shri S.K. Sethi, UDC
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SG/A/2011/001730
CIC/SG/A/2011/001724
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant, (UDC in the PA) through her RTIapplication dated 28.03.2011, filed with the
PIO/SDM, Election, New Delhi, sought certain information (such as, daily progress report, name of
the officers who dealt the application, discrepancies in the application etc.) in relation to her
application dated 12.02.2011 for inclusion of her name in the electoral roll. Since the Applicant did not
receive any reply from the PIO within the time limit set under the RTIAct, she filed her 1stappeal with
the Appellate Authority on 02.05.2011. The PIO, however, subsequently, on 10.05.2011, replied to
the Applicant’s RTIapplication informing that her application is under process. The Appellant
Authority, in response to the Appellant’s 1stappeal to him, passed on order dated 31.05.2011
directing the PIO to allow the inspection of relevant records to the Appellant. The PIO accordingly, on
14.06.2011, intimated the date and time for inspection to the Appellant which the Appellant carried
out on 18.06.2011. The Appellant, however, still aggrieved, filed the present petition dated nil before
the Commission –received on 28.06.2011 stating that no record corresponding to her RTI
application was found be available in the Respondents’ record when she visited their office for
inspection.
Decision
CIC/SG/A/2011/001730 & CIC/SG/A/2011/001724
2. During the hearing, the representative of the Respondents informed the Commission that the
Appellant vide her application dated 12.02.2011 had applied for inclusion of her name in electoral roll
through their on line system, which the public authority had already closed from 25.01.2011 and that
therefore the said application of the Applicant could not be downloaded/processed by them. However,
in compliance with the AA’s decision, they showed their records manual as well as computer records
to the Appellant on 18.06.2011 establishing the fact that her application had not been processed by
them. They, nevertheless, advised the Appellant that she may submit a fresh application as per the
prescribed procedure which they would consider as per Rule. The representative of the
Respondents also pointed out that an identical appeal (no. CIC/SG/A/20 11/001724), filed by the
Appellant’s husband, Shri Abbas, also has been listed for 28.07.2011contents of which are exactly
same as those in the present one and that the Appellant in that case, Shri Abbas has also inspected
the records along with his wife–Appellant in the instant case.
3. In view of the submissions above and especially in view of the fact that the Appellant has admittedly
inspected the Respondents’ records, I find nothing more that can be directed to be disclosed to the
Appellant by way of information in the present matter. It is, therefore, directed that there shall be no
further disclosure in the present matter. Similarly, in appeal no. CIC/SG/A/20 11/001724, filed by the
Appellant’s husband, Shri Abbas, which, when perused, was found to be identical to the present
appeal; the Respondents are not required to disclose any further information to the Appellant.
4. Appeals are disposed of with the above directions.
5. Apart from the above, it is also noted that the Respondents have failed to appear before the
Commission without any reasonable ground and have sent an ‘UDC’ to argue their case before the
Commission and that they have not even bothered to intimate in writing to the Commission as to who
they are authorizing to represent their case. This attitude of the Respondents is highly objectionable
which cannot be allowed. They are therefore hereby warned to be careful in future.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Ms. Gulshan Khatun
H.No. C 180, J J Colony,
Bawana
Delhi 110 039
2. Shri Abbas
H.No. C 180, J J Colony,
Bawana
Delhi 110 039
3. The Appellate Authority & Dy. Commissioner
Office of the District Election Officer
District North West, Kanjawala
Delhi
4. The Public Information Officer & SDM (Election)
Office of the District Election Officer
District North West, Kanjawala
Delhi
5. Officer in charge, NIC