CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003144/10783
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003144
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Premraj,
s/o Mr. (Late) Narayan Singh,
H.No. 10382, 1st Floor,
Manakpura, Mandir Lane,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi- 110005.
Respondent : Mr. S. K. Sharma
Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (Vigilance)
Delhi Jal Board (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Room No. 315-B, Varunalaya,
Phase-II, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 05.
RTI application filed on : 22/07/2010 PIO replied : 12/08/2010 First appeal filed on : 06/09/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 04/10/2010 Second Appeal received on : 09/11/2010
The Appellant had filed a compliant on 21/06/2010 to the Vigilance Department and sought information
with respect to his compliant.
S. No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Furnish details of authorities who Complaint against Regional Revenue Officer Mrs.
handled the Appellant’s application and Sushila is being handled by Senior Investigation
the time for which the application was Officer Mr. I. S. Sharma. A copy of the complaint has
with each. been forwarded to Joint Director (Central NNW) to
look into the matter and furnish a report on the
proceedings of the same.
2. Furnish copies of documents reflecting No one’s statement has been recorded yet.
action taken on the Appellant’s
complaint.
3. Furnish names of the authorities who had This information can be furnished only after the
to take action on the Appellant’s investigation has been completed.
complaint but did not.
4. Specify action that would be taken Depends on conclusion of the investigation.
against these erring officials and by what
time.
5. Specify if these officials are liable to be Same as above.
prosecuted under certain Acts.
6. Specify the time by which this matter The accused officials do not come under the purview
would be handed over to the Vigilance of investigation carried out by the CVC.
Commission.
7. Specify the time by which any action Depends on conclusion of the investigation.
would be taken in regard to the
Appellant’s compliant.
First Appeal:
Incorrect, misleading and incomplete information furnished by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
“The PIO has already furnished a requisite reply to the Appellant. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Appellant is aggrieved with the order of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Premraj;
Respondent : Mr. S. K. Sharma, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (Vigilance);
The Appellant has been given information available on the records when he filed the RTI
application. The Appellant had filed a compliant on 21/06/2010 and sought details of the action taken
through his RTI application on 22/07/2010. The Respondent has provided the information on the action
taken against the complaint on 12/08/2010 and has provided the information as available with them.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
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
05 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SC)