Dr.Jitendra Nath Gupta vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 January, 2011

Central Information Commission
Dr.Jitendra Nath Gupta vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 January, 2011
                          CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              Club Building (Near Post Office)
                            Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                   Tel: +91-11-26161796
                                                                Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003315/10893
                                                                        Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003315
Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Dr. Jitendra Nath Gupta
4526, Dai Wara,
Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006

Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar
Deemed PIO & SR-I
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
Revenue Department
O/o Dy. Commissioner North
Old Court Building, Delhi-110006

Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar
PIO & SDM(Civil Lines)
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
Revenue Department
1, Kripa Narayan Marg,
New Delhi-110054

RTI application filed on : 25/06/2010
PIO replied : 06/08/2010
First appeal filed on : 03/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 04/10/2010
Second Appeal received on : 25/11/2010
Information Sought:

The appellant sought information basically to check whether the information given in a previous RTI was
right or not. Therefore the information sought was the legal provision or rule which mentions that the
DORIS form is not mandatory.

Reply of the Public Information Commissioner:
06/08/2010: The PIO replied that the information sought does not pertain to this office but to the office of
SDM (HQ)-II, 5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi.

04/10/2010: The PIO replied after the FAA’s order that there is no rule which states that DORIS form is not
mandatory.

Grounds for the First Appeal:

The information provided by the PIO is misleading because under the RTI Act 2005, if the RTI doesn’t
pertain to the respective office then it is the duty of the PIO to transfer the RTI application to the concerned
office.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA directed the PIO to furnish a modified reply to the appellant.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

The information given is misleading.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant : Dr. Jitendra Nath Gupta;

Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Deemed PIO & SR-I;

The Deemed PIO Mr. Rakesh Kumar states that he initially gave the information that the information
would be available with SDM(HQ-II). He did not provide the information nor did he seek the assistance of
any other officer or transfer the RTI application. After the order of the FAA on 04/10/2010 information was
provided that there was no rule which was sought by the Appellant.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The information has been provided.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
Mr. Ashok Kumar PIO & SDM(Civil Lines) and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Deemed PIO & SR-I within 30
days as required by the law.

From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO and PIO are guilty of not
furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30
days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.

It appears that the deemed PIO and PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A
showcause notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to
show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.

Mr. Ashok Kumar PIO & SDM(Civil Lines) and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Deemed PIO & SR-I will present
themselves before the Commission at the above address on 29 January 2011 at 11.00AM alongwith their
written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section
20 (1). They will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit
speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.

If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO
is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with them.

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
12 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(MS)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *