CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002401/9739
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002401
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Dr. Rajiv Kumar
F-43, Green Park
New Delhi-110016
Respondent : Dr. Amita Manaktala
ASPIO& Dy. Medical Superintendent
O/o the Dy. Medical Superintendent
Madan Mohan Malaviya Hospital
Government of NCT of Delhi
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-17
RTI application filed on : 01/02/2010
PIO replied : 25/02/2010
First appeal filed on : 30/03/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 29/04/2010
Second Appeal received on : 27/08/2010
Information Sought:
1. The Dak receipt register.
2. The Dak dispatched register.
3. The file movement register.
4. The internal Dak movement register.
5. The peon book.
6. The speed post details.
7. The service stamp records.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
All the information were provided in the hospital and would be provided on the hearing date.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
It was requested to clarify and suggest as how to process the appeal application of Mr. Rajiv Kumar for its
disposal.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete reply of the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Dr. Rajiv Kumar;
Respondent: Dr. Amita Manaktala, ASPIO& Dy. Medical Superintendent;
The appellant had sought inspection of a fairly large number of records for a two and half year
period, in which he has also stated, “I may please be advised as to how pen down by application so that
nothing could be refused to me”. The PIO responded that the application was vague and was not very
specific the files which the appellant wanted to inspect. On a plain reading of the appellant’s application it
does appear as if it could be a very wide search and could be an endless inspection.
The appellant has stated that he believes that the PIO was motivated by malafide and therefore he states
that he should be given compensation and the penalty should be imposed on the PIO. The Commission
does not agree with the contentions of the appellant since it feels that the wordings used in the application
were slightly vague and could have led to a believe that this could be a never ending inspection. The
appellant has given written submissions to the Commission to substantiate his claim for compensation and
awarding a penalty to the PIO for malafide denial of information which is taken on the record.
The Commission has asked the appellant about the number of days he would need to inspect the records.
The appellant who was working in the hospital earlier states that he will tell the PIO the exact records he
wants to inspect and the inspection will not taken more than two days.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs the PIO to facilitate an inspection of the records identified
by the appellant from 25 October 2010 to 28 October 2010 from 10.30AM onwards. The
PIO will give attested photocopies of records which the appellant wants free of cost upto
300 pages.
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 October 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AM)