Central Information Commission Judgements

Mrs. Neeta Bahl vs Central Establishment … on 25 November, 2009

Central Information Commission
Mrs. Neeta Bahl vs Central Establishment … on 25 November, 2009
                      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                       Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                                 Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                         Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002539/5680
                                                               Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002539

Appellant                                  :      Mrs. Neeta Bahl
                                                  W/o Mr. Pramod Bahl,
                                                  2nd Floor, 100-Banarsi Das Estate,
                                                  Timar Pur Road, Delhi-110009

Respondent                                 :1)    Mr. Ravinder Kumar
                                                  Public Information Officer
                                                  Dy. Law Officer
                                                  Central Establishment Department,
                                                  Municipal Corporation of Delhi
                                                  Town Hall, Delhi-110006

                                           2)     Dr. Vireshwar Singh
                                                  Public Information Officer
                                                  Chief Medical Officer (Health)
                                                  Health Department,
                                                  Municipal Corporation of Delhi
                                                  Town Hall, Delhi - 110006

RTI application filed on                   :      12/06/2009
PIO replied                                :      10/07/2009
First Appeal filed on                      :      17/08/2009
First Appellate Authority order            :      Not enclosed.
Second Appeal Received on                  :      07/10/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on                  :      20/10/2009
Hearing Held on                            :      25/11/2009

Information sought:
Appellant sought following information on four points. Out of them first point was replied and other
rests were to be replied:
    1.      The status and Serial No. of Dr. S Basu (DH Town Hall), Dr. Deepak Jain (RBTB),
            Dr.Suresh Bansal (HRH in the final seniority list (issued in 1990) of the GDMO of the
            MCD Health Department.
    2.      The certified copy of the office order by which Dr. S Basu is posted as Addl. DHA
            (Medical).
    3.      All certified copies of the Office Note and approval of the competent authority by which
            Dr. S Basu assigned the post of the Addl. DHA (Medical).
    4.      The name the officer assigned the work of the MCD for the same.

PIO's Reply:
Application was forwarded by Nodal Officer, Health Department, Town hall to Respondents mentioned
above vide letter dated 15/06/2009.
Respondent no. 1 replied regarding question no. 1 as follow:
Dr. S. Basu Sty. No. 440
Dr. Deepak Jain Sty. NO. 468
Dr. Suresh Chander Bansal Sty. No. 451.
 Above mentioned doctors are presently working to the post of CMO(NFSG) in the pay scale of Rs. 14,
300-18, 300/ pre revised.
Note: Other remaining questions were not replied by any Respondent.

Grounds for First Appeal:
Reply to point no.1 had been provided and rests were not provided.

Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not enclosed.

Grounds for Second Appeal:
Denial and refusal for the information. No response from FAA.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mrs. Neeta Bahl;

Respondent: Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Public Information Officer and Dy. Law Officer;

Dr. Vireshwar Singh, Public Information Officer and CMO(Health);
The Respondent claims that some of the information was sent on 10/08/2009 which the
Appellant claims she has not received. Answer to query-3 was to be given by DHA and that was not
sent at all. Though the PIO has brought it with him. He has handed over the information to the
Appellant in the per sense of the Commission. He states that the person responsible in the DHA’s
office for not providing information earlier is Dr. Venkat, OSD to Director of Hospital Administration.

Decision:

The appeal is allowed.

The information has been provided to the Appellant.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
Deemed PIO Dr. Venkat, OSD to Director of Hospital Administration within 30 days as required
by the law.

From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO Dr. Venkat 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 deemed 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 24 December 2009 at 11.00am
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1).

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
25 November 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
CC: to,
Dr. Venkat, OSD to Director of Hospital Administration through Dr. Vireshwar Singh, Public
Information Officer and CMO(Health);