CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/003021/6412
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003021
Appellant : Mr. Satya Pal
6/42, DESU Colony,
Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Asstt. Secretary
Delhi Electricity Regularity
Commission, Viniyamak Bhawan,
C-Block, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017
RTI application filed on : 05/09/2009
PIO replied : 16/11/2009
First Appeal filed on : 28/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned
Second Appeal Received on : 03/12/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 14/12/2009
Hearing Held on : 15/01/2010
Information sought:
Giving some reference, Appellant sought following information:
"Certified copy of revalidated/ fresh notification of Policy Directions by the Govt. beyond period
2006-2007. As per Act, the Govt. means Lt. Governor of NCTD."
PIO's Reply:
Respondent had stated, "In the context of your application I am to state in consultation with the
Law Division, DERC that the information/ certified copy of direction issued by Govt. of
GNCTD can't be supplied by that office, as the issuing agency which had notified such
directions can only supply the certified copy of the same"
Grounds for First Appeal:
Information not provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Information /documents not provided.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Satya Pal;
Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant had filed RTI application with the PIO of DERC on 07/09/2009. Since he
did no receive any reply, he filed the first appeal on 29/10/2009 with the First Appellate
Authority(FAA). On 16/11/2009 the appellant received a letter from Mr. S.K.Sharma, Assistant
Secretary stating, “In the context of your application I am to state in consultation with the Law
Division, DERC that the information/ certified copy of direction issued by Govt. of GNCTD
can’t be supplied by that office, as the issuing agency which had notified such directions can
only supply the certified copy of the same.” The PIO has sent a letter on 29/12/2009 informing
the Commission that they continue to maintain the same position as was informed to the
Appellant on 16/11/2009.
The PIO has not denied holding the information but claims that since the law division has
informed him that, “information/ certified copy of direction issued by Govt. of GNCTD can’t be
supplied by that office, as the issuing agency which had notified such directions can only supply
the certified copy of the same.” This position does not appear to be in consonance with the RTI
Act 2005. The RTI Act defines at Section 2(j), “right to information” means the right to
information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public
authority”. The PIO has not defined the fact that the public authority i.e. DERC holds the
information. If however the PIO wanted to take the position that the information is more closely
related to the Govt. of NCTD he could have transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) to
the appropriate public authority within five days. He has refused to provide the information
though he was holding it and not even bothered to transfer it under Section 6(3). The PIO’s
actions are not as per the RTI Act and unnecessary harassment is being caused to the Appellant.
The law is very clear that once information is held physically by the public authority it has to
provide the information.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant before 05 February 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the PIO 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 12 February 2010 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.
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 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj