CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00919/SG/2258
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00919/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Jagvesh Kumar Sharma
A-42 & 43, Gali No.4,
Pandav Nagar Complex,
Ganesh Nagar,
New Delhi - 110092
Respondent : Joint Secretary (Home)
& Public Information Officer
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Home (General) Department,
5th Floor, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P.Estate, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 23/10/2007 Id no. 866
PIO’s Reply : 11/12/2007
First Appeal filed on : 25/01/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 25/02/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 10/05/2008
The appellant had sought certain information from Govt. of NCT of Delhi in respect of armed
license validity.
S.N. Information Sought PIO’s Reply
1. What is the rules of validating armed license to In continuation of this office letter no.
all India basis. Furnish copy of the rules. 13/20/2007/HG/4909 dated 5/12/2007
2. Home Ministry or Delhi Government issued on the subject above, I am to further
these rules/guidelines? inform you in respect to Part-3 of your
3. How many recommendations home department application dated 23/10/2007 that 1694
of Delhi government has sent to home ministry, application were received for extension
government of India for validation of armed of area validity to All India out of
license to all india basis between 4th July 1989 which only 978 cases from 2001 to till
to 30th August, 2007? date, were approved by the Hon’ble Lt.
4. Why validation was not done even after Governor of Delhi.
recommendation of DCP Licensing?
5. Furnish copy of the rules by which DCP’s
recommendation needed to validate license?
Not satisfied with the replies of the PIO the appellant field first appeal before first appellate
authority:
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
The First appellate authority in his order informed to the appellant that the information was
provided to appellant time to time in English and Hindi respectively on dated 21/11/2007,
27/11/2007 and 16/01/2008. He further states that all the information available in the records
were provided to the appellant.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. Jagvesh Kumar Sharma
Respondent: Mr. Vineet Kumar on behalf pf Mr. Mukul Koranga PIO
The appellant has shown significant discrepancies in the information supplied by the PIO.
He has shown that the rules given to him by the PIO for validating arms licenses on all India
basis have been superseded by a letter of 22 September 2008. The appellant has shown different
data given by the PIO on his queries which are inconsistent with each other as also with answers
supplied in Parliament on the same matter. The PIO admits that these discrepancies exist but
claims this is the result of various errors and is not able to give explanations for these.
It appears that either the department is confused about the matters or is operating in a very
arbitrary manner. The appellant has been filing various RTI applications to highlight this.
In view of this the Principal Secretary Home- Shri G.S.Patnaik – is directed to look at the queries
and the serious discrepancies pointed out by the appellant, and give a report to the Commission
and the appellant giving the true state of affairs on the issues raised by the appellant.
The appellant has given a list of the discrepancies (37 pages) in the information provided to the
PIO.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Principal Secretary Home- Shri G.S. Patnaik – is directed to look at the queries and the
serious discrepancies pointed out by the appellant, and give a report to the Commission and the
appellant giving the true state of affairs on the issues raised by the appellant. This report will be
submitted before 15 April 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
18th March 2009
(In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)