CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110 067.
Tel.: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/00085/SG/2187
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00085/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Saini,
R/o C -50, Chander Nagar,
Ghaziabad.
Respondent : PIO/ADM,
Govt of NCT of Delhi
M.B. Road, Saket,
New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 08/06/2007 ID No.-728.
PIO replied : 04/07/2007
First appeal filed on : 13/08/2007
First Appellate Authority order : not mentioned
Second Appeal filed on : 22/10/2007
Information sought and reply, if any:
The appellant had sought information relating to the action taken on an application filed by
the appellant on 05/07/2006 before the ADM for payment against Award No.4/94-95 in village
Tughlakabad against Khasra No.2629/1953/1406 and Shumar No.25 and Khasra No. 2918/2147/1044
acquired against the Award No.13/87-88. The PIO in his reply stated that necessary steps had been
initiated as provided under the law for the disposal of the appellant’s application. The applicant was
also requested to visit the office to see the relevant record and if he wanted to see the certified copies
then they could be sent to him. The appellant did not get any information, so filed an appeal.
The First Appellate Authority Order:
No order. Hence, the appellant has filed the second appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Saini
Respondent: Absent
The PIO has sent a letter on 4/7/2007 asking the appellant to visit the Office.
This is not information and the PIO must desist from asking applicants to visit his office
unless he can give very clear reasons for this. The First appellate authority has also not
passed any order and is guilty of dereliction of his duty.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 20 March, 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
Mr. S.K. Singh within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing
information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30
days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal
provisions of Section 20 (1) .
A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to
show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 27 March 2009 at 2.30pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the
appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
5 March 2009
(Any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)