CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001932/9074
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001932
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Bhagmal Pali
T-135, Rajpura,
Gurmandi, Delhi - 7.
Respondent : Mr. Pradeep Baijal
Public Information Officer & SDM
Government of NCT of Delhi
O/o Sub- Divisional Magistrate
Model Town, Old Middle School Building,
Rampura, Delhi - 110035.
RTI application filed on : 25/02/2010
PIO replied : 17/05/2010
First appeal filed on : 22/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not enclosed
Second Appeal received on : 10/07/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Please provide the photocopy the following documents - Documents of Receipt No.
1) Two forms that were deposited on 20/03/2009, receipt no of the 103269 and 103270, are not
forms being 103269 and 103270 respectively. available in office.
2) Complaint letter deposited in the SDM office dated 28/08/2009
2. Action taken report on the files of the forms deposited on As above.
20/03/2009.
3. Action taken report on the complaint deposited on 28/08/2009 As above.
regarding the case of bribery and the OBC certificate.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order passed by the FAA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and No order passed by the FAA
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Bhagmal Pali;
Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Baijal, Public Information Officer & SDM; Mr. Dabas, Dealing Assistant;
Te appellant had posted his RTI application on 25/02/2010 by speed post to PIO/ADM,
Kanjhawala. This was transferred and received by PIO/SDM Model Town on 17/03/2010. The PIO states
Page 1 of 2
that he sent the information to the Appellant on 17/05/2010. The Appellant states that this reply was sent
on 01/06/2010 by speed post. The appellant had filed for issuing OBC Certificate for his two children on
20/03/2009 and he described how he was asked for a bribe to issue this certificate. According to the
computer records of the authority the OBC Certificate was made on 30/11/2009 but very interestingly and
significantly the entire file has been stolen. The PIO is directed to file a police complaint about the
theft/loss of the said file giving the name and designation of the person who last handled this file.
The RTI application had been received by the PIO on 17/03/2010 and the information should have been
provided before 17/04/2010. Instead information that the file was not traceable was sent to the appellant
only on 17/05/2010. The PIO states that Mr. Dabas, Dealing Assistant was responsible for this delay. Mr.
Dabas, Dealing Assistant admits that he was responsible for this delay.
The PIO Mr. Pradeep Baijal states that he will ensure that the caste certificate of the appellant is made
within 15 days if the appellant gives a fresh application.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to send a copy of the police complaint as directed above to the
Appellant and the Commission before 15 September 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
deemed PIO Mr. Dabas, Dealing Assistant within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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 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.
Mr. Dabas, Dealing Assistant will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
04 October 2010 at 10.30am 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.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.
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
20 August 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)
Page 2 of 2