CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000885/7607
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000885
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Durgesh Kumar
24-B, Janyug Apartment,
Sector – 14 (Extn.), Rohini,
Delhi – 110085.
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
Asstt. Registrar (NW)
O/o Registrar of Co-operative Societies
GNCTD, Old Court Building,
Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001
RTI application filed on : 06/01/2010
PIO replied : Not replied
First appeal filed on : 15/02/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 26/02/2010
Second Appeal received on : 07/04/2010
Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought following information in respect of his application dated
04/05/2007, 06/06/2007 and 12/12/2007 which he filed with the RCS.
1) Copy of the action taken report by the office in respect of the above said cases till
today along with copy of the order sheet.
2) Name and designation of the concerned officers of the RCS who were deputed to
take action in respect of the above.
The Appellant further sought following information with respect to the direction given by
the RCS to the Society (Janyug Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd.) to issue NOC to
the petitioner for getting the flat converted into freehold
a) Copy of the action taken report by the office in respect of the above said
case till date along with copy of the order sheet.
b) Name and designation of the concerned officers of the RCS who were
deputed to take action in respect of the above.
Reply of the PIO:
Not replied.
Ground for the First Appeal:
Non-receipt of the information from the PIO within the stipulated time.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The SPIO was directed to provide specific point wise reply to the Appellant as per record
within 15 days.
Page 1 of 2
Ground for the Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the FAA’s order by the PIO.
Decision:
The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. The Appellant
filed an RTI Application on 06/01/2010. The Appellant did not receive any reply from the
PIO and he filed a First Appeal dated 15/02/2010. The First Appellate Authority in its order
held a hearing on 24/02/2010 during which the Appellant and Mr. Ved Prakash, SPIO were
present. The First Appellate Authority vide its order dated 26/02/2010 directed the SPIO to
provide a specific point-wise reply to the Appellant within 15 days of the order. However,
till the date of filing Second Appeal (07/04/2010), the Appellant was not provided any
information.
The information sought by the Appellant falls within the definition of Section 2(f) of the
RTI Act and no exemption can be claimed by the PIO to refuse disclosure. If the
information would not have been available with the PIO or if any exemption under Section
8(1) or 9 applied in the present case, the First Appellate Authority would have made an
observation in that respect. However, no such observation has been made. The Commission
therefore directs the SPIO & Asst. Registrar (NW) to comply with the order of the First
Appellate Authority and provide the point-wise information to the Appellant before 20
May 2010.
Appeal is allowed.
The SPIO & Asst. Registrar (NW) is directed to provide the complete information
free of cost to the Appellant before 20/05/2010. He is further directed to submit proof of
sending the information to the Appellant to the Commission before 25/05/2010.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the SPIO & Asst. Registrar (NW)
is guilty of not complying with sub-section (1) of Section 7. A show cause notice is being
issued to him, and he is directed to give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why
penalty should not be levied on him under Section 20 of the RTI Act before 25/05/2010 for
not providing information within the time limit stipulated in the RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
28 April 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(GJ)
Page 2 of 2