CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001470/4431
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001470
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Chirpal
N-1, Riviera Aprtments,
Delhi-110054.
Respondent : Mr. B. M. Shrama
Public Information Offier (PGC) &
Deputy Secretary
Public Grievances Commission
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
M-Block, Vikas Bhawan,
I. P. Estate, New Delhi-110010.
RTI application filed on : 16/10/2008
PIO replied : 14/11/2008
First appeal filed on : 17/11/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 24/12/2008
Second Appeal received on : 03/01/2009
Information Sought:
The Appellant had complained that the hearing of his appeal was postponed once on 06/08/2008
because the concern officer was absent and later the appeal was heard in the absence of the
Appellant on 24/09/2008 because the concerned officer was present. He wanted to know that
how did the PGC verified the person who came on behalf of the RCS as respondent had been
duly authorized by the PIO of RCS and what action does it takes when it finds that the person
representing the PIO was not duly authorized by the office of the RCS.
Reply of PIO:
The PIO replied that the appeal which was postponed on 06/08/2008 was later rescheduled for
hearing on 20.08.2008 which was again postponed for 22.08.2008. The PIO said that without
availability of competent authority or official on behalf of him, the requisite information would
not have been available. At the same time it was not possible to shift the hearing on short notice
as the Appellant had asked for vide his letter dated 22.09.2008 and also it was prerogative of the
FAA to shift the time of hearing. The PIO clarified that the answer was provided to the
satisfaction of the Appellant. The PIO also clarified that in case of any unauthorized persons
attending the hearing on behalf of the department, matter could be referred to the department for
explanation/action.
Ground of First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information received from the PIO.
First Appellate Authority ordered:
“The Appellant has been provided the complete information as defined under section 2 (f) of RTI
Act 2005 and his contention that the SPIO has not provided the complete information has no
force.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unfair disposal of Appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Chirpal
Respondent : Mr. B. M. Shrama, PIO and Mr. M.K.Gupta, APIO
The appellant points out that the FAA had in his handwritten order dictated during the hearing on
01/12/2008 stated, “Reply of Certain parts which were not given earlier will be supplied in 15
days time.” However the final orders were issued by Mr. V.C. Pandey, Secretary, PGC on
24/12/2008 does not reflect this at all but disposes the appeal without ordering any information
to be provided. The Appellant points out that thus there was there was 23 days delay in issuing
the final typed order and this appears to be a clear variance from what was stated during the
hearing. The FAA has given no reasoning in the final order issued by him to justify this change
of mind. The Appellant also alleges that the FAA had changed his mind without any reasons and
that this was known to the PIO. Hence the PIO did not follow the order of the FAA by
15/12/2008.
The FAA Mr. V.C.Pandey is directed to give an explanation for this Uturn in his decision to the
Commission and the Appellant before 25 August 2009.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The FAA Mr. V.C.Pandey is directed to give an explanation for this Uturn in his decision to the
Commission and the Appellant before 25 August 2009.
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
12 August 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(GJ)