CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Block IV, 5th Floor, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi 110067
Complaint No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00272
dated 21.11. 2008
Name of the Complainants/Appellant: Dr. G.C. Sethi
Sr. Consultant Surgeon
A-1/170, Hastsal Road
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59.
Public Authority: Directorate of Health Services
Govt of NCT of Delhi
F-17, Karkardooma
Delhi.
Date of Hearing 18.11.2008
Date of Decision 21.11.2008
Facts
1. Complainant, Dr. G.C. Sethi submitted an RTI application Dep’t of Nursing
Homes, Directorate of Medical Health, CNCT Delhi, received and registered as
ID No.303 on 12.11.2007. Through the RTI application, he wanted to know as to
“what action had been taken on my complaint concerning unlawful medical
practice by Dr. I.A. Ansari” of Ansari hospital Sagarpur, New Delhi. He also
asked as to what action had been taken against the said hospital for violation of
rules and other unlawful acts mentioned in the said complaint.
2. The complainant was asked by the PIO Dr B Nath to deposit a fee of
Rs.6/-, which was deposited on 26.12.2007. The applicant sent another letter on
31.1.2008 requesting the PIO to furnish information as more than one month had
already passed since the deposit.
3. As no reply was received from the PIO, the applicant submitted a
complaint petition before this Commission on 12.2.2008 praying for suitable legal
action against the respondent.
1
4. This Commission by notice dated 21.8.2008 called the parties for a
hearing on 16.9.2008.
5. The matter was heard by the Full Bench of the Commission on
18.11.2008. Although informed of the hearing appellant was not present. The
respondent Dr NR Aggarwal, who is present submitted that they have already
furnished the requested information on 13.2.2008. Respondent also submitted
that there was some delay in supplying the information because the fee was
deposited with cash section but the information about such deposit reached them
late. They submitted that they have complied with the mandate of the Right to
Information Act (RTI Act) by supplying information but the delay which has
occurred in supplying information to the complainant is not intentional or
deliberate but only due to delayed communication of information from their Cash
Section.
DECISION NOTICE
6. In view of the circumstances of the case, it is clear that no individual can
be held to account for the delay in response. It is, however, regrettable that the
public authority has no system in place whereby the CPIO is informed
immediately a deposit is made on a specific case by the Cash Section in the
same public authority, which should be automatic. We hereby direct the Director,
Health Services, Government of NCT of Delhi us 19 (8) sub-section (a) to
personally look into the matter and ensure that no undue delay is caused in
transmitting information from the cash section to the PIO. The system should be
so devised as to ensure that RTI applications are responded to within the time
limit prescribed under the RTI Act.
2
The information sought having now been supplied there remains no
further cause of action. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Reserved in the in the hearing this Decision is announced in open
chamber on 21.11.’08. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) (A.N. Tiwari)
Chief Information Commissioner Information Commissioner
(Mrs. Padma Balasubramanian)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of
this Commission.
(Prem Singh Sagar)
Assistant Registrar
3