CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/003013/6382
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003013
Appellant : Mr. B. S. Rajawat
A-5B/96A, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058
Respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma
Public Information Officer
Registrar of Cooperative Society,
O/o the Registrar Co-operative,
Societies, Old Courts Bldg.
Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001
RTI application filed on : 12/08/2009
PIO replied : 21/08/2009
First Appeal filed on : 01/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 22/10/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 01/12/2006
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 11/12/2009
Hearing Held on : 14/01/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of PIO
(Asstt. Regtr.(Arbitration))
1. Whether the deptt. had appointed Yes.
Arbitrators of Coop Bank employees and
they were getting arbitration cases.
2. Whether a few arbitrators were getting It is incorrect that some of the arbitrators are
arbitration cases almost every month getting cases each month whereas others are not
where others were not even getting cases getting cases after lapse of 3 months. Assignment
after lapse of more than 3 months. of cases depends upon availability at a particular
time moreover the question is vague and
unspecific.
3. The Appellant requested information 3. i) ii)) iii)- The records of the cases assigned to
about the cases allotted to various the arbitrators are not kept in form asked for by the
arbitrators for the period Jan, 207 to July Appellant. However, the records maintained in
209 in the following manner: office of cases assigned to a particular arbitrator
i. Name of the arbitrator with may be inspected.
designation and office
address. Reply from (Dy. Registr.)vide letter dated
ii. Name of month of every 07/09/2009
month.
iii. No. of cases allotted every The record of the fee paid by the Coop Bank/
month. individual to the Deptt. are not kept in form asked
for by the Appellant. However, the payments of a
particular Coop Nank/ individual may be
iv. Amount of fee paid by the inspected.
respective Coop Bank/
individual to the deptt.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Information not provided by the PIO in mandatory period.
Incomplete information provided by the PIO, Asstt. Registrar(Arbitration)
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The reply given by the SPIO vide paras 1 & 2, were in order. As regards the information
provided in respect of para 3, FAA was agree with that information could not be provided in the
table/format prepared by the Appellant.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Incomplete and vague information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. B. S. Rajawat;
Respondent: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Public Information Officer;
The PIO inform the Commission that there is a register in which all the arbitration work
given to each arbitrator is recorded. It is evident that in response to query-3 the PIO could have
offered photocopies of these registers. Neither the PIO nor the FAA offered this to the
Appellant. It appears that the PIO and the FAA were keen not to give information to the
Appellant.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give a photocopy of the register in which all the arbitration work
given to arbitrator is recorded free of cots to the Appellant before 30 January 2010.
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
14 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj