CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003121/6529adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003121
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Harishankar Thakur
SATHI-NGO, B-1751,
New Delhi - 110059
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
O/o the Registrar of Society,
Plot no. 419, FIE,
Patparganj Industrial Area,
Delhi - 110092
First Appellate Authority
Jt. Commissioner of Industries
419, Udyog Sadan
FIE, Patparganj Industrial Area
Delhi 110092
RTI application filed on : 28/08/2009
PIO replied : 26/09/2009
First appeal filed on : 15/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.
Date of Notice of Hearing : 22/12/2009
Hearing Held on : 22/01/2010
The Appellant had sought information regarding aids given to help poor, destitute, blinds and
handicapped as per Society registration no. (XXI) 1860:
S. No Information Sought PIO's Reply A. Whether any organization under Society There is no such provision in the Act.
Registration Act (XXI) 1860 can implement
schemes which includes financial
transactions?
B. If yes. Then what is maximum amount As stated above, there is no such
permitted? provision in the Act.
C. Whether using gifted (Dan) amounts is No such information is available
permissible/approved under such schemes regarding reorganization and
to organization namely "Utthan".? justification.
Page 1 of 3
D. If not. Then under which rule such schemes Company Act, Chit Fund Society and
can be implemented? Cooperative Society Act (Threft &
Credit)
E. If such organizations are not doing their Registrar of Society is not empowered
work as approved, then what action has to take any action against such society.
been taken against such organizations?
F. Whether 80 G certificate can be used for No legal opinion can be given in this
other such schemes. regard.
First Appeal:
Late information was provided. Answer to Sr. (C) was not given.
Order of the FAA:
Not mentioned.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information has been received by the appellant neither nay refusal letter till date.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 22 January 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Harishankar Thakur;
Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant had filed the first appeal which was posted on 20/10/2009 by speed
post. The Appellant was called for the hearing on 08/12/2009 but no hearing was held.
He was again called on 15/12/2009 when the hearing was held and the order was issued
on 16/12/2009. The First Appellate Authority Mr. Vishwa Mohan, Joint Commissioner
(Industries) is guilty of dereliction of duty since he had not passed an order in the matter
within 45 days which is maximum time permission to give an order as per the RTI Act.
Mr. Vishwa Mohan is directed to give an explanation to the Commission for his
dereliction of duty before 15 February 2010.
The Appellant states that after the order of the FAA he has received the information.
Thus the second appeal was entirely unnecessary and was made only because of the delay
on the part of Mr. Vishwa Mohan who did no do his duty as per the RTI Act.
Decision:
“The Appeal is disposed.
The information has been provided to the Appellant.”
Facts leading to adjunct decision :
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Mr. Vishwa Mohan had given written submissions
on 11 February 2010 and also made oral submissions before the Commission on 10
March 2010 in a personal meeting. He has made the following key points:
1. Preliminary objection:
Page 2 of 3
The Commission made an observation that FAA is ” guilty of dereliction of duty since he
had not pass an order in the matter within 45 days which is maximum time permission to
give an order as per the RTI Act.” And also observed that that ” FAA did not do his duty
as per the RTI Act.” The FAA Mr. Vishwa Mohan states that this was an error on the
part of the Commission to have held him ‘guilty’ without giving him an opportunity of
hearing.
2. Reply on merits:
(i) He assumed charge as FAA only on 26/10/2009 and hence cannot be held responsible
for actions before that.
(ii) A perusal of the records reveals that the RTI appeal was erroneously received by the
PIO on 22/10/2009 and after travelling through some officers was received in the office
of the FAA only on 26/11/2009.
(iii) On receipt of the appeal on 26/11/2009 he scheduled a hearing on 8/12/2009 which
could not be held on that day since he was required to be present in the High Court of
Delhi.
(iv) After hearing the matter he gave an order on 16/12/2009. Thus he had issued an order
within 19 days of receiving the appeal in his office.
Hence the FAA Mr. Vishwa Mohan has stated that the Commission should withdraw its
charge of ‘dereliction of duty’ against him and close that matter.
Adjunct Decision on 15 March 2010:
The Commission has considered the submissions of the First Appellate authority Mr.
Vishwa Mohan, and has come to the following conclusions:
1. Mr. Vishwa Mohan’s contention that the Commission should not have made a
comment that he was ‘guilty of dereliction of duty’ without giving him an opportunity of
hearing is correct and reasonable. I erred in making this statement and should have given
an opportunity to him to explain his actions before passing this observation.
2. Based on the evidence given by Mr. Vishwa Mohan it appears that he was not guilty of
any dereliction of duty, but has actually performed his duty as FAA very diligently. The
appeal was erroneously received in the office of the PIO, from where it took 34 days to
reach the FAA. Mr. Vishwa Mohan cannot be held accountable for this.
The Commission accepts its error in making the charge of Mr. Vishwa Mohan being
‘guilty of dereliction of duty’ and withdraws it completely. I also offer my apologies to
Mr. Vishwa Mohan for this error personally.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15 March 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RR)
Page 3 of 3