CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000103/11540 Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000103 Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. R.D. Dhawan D-502, Gateway Tower Plot No. 24, Sector 4 Vaishali, Ghaziabad 201010 Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Goel Public Information Officer & DCA New Delhi Municipal Council D/o. Architecture & Environs Palika Kendra, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 02/05/2010 PIO replied : 20/07/2010 First appeal filed on : 09/07/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 10/08/2010 Second Appeal received on : 18/11/2010 Information Sought:-
1(a) While working in the misuse all during the period 2007-2008, how many official seals (used for
sealing of the premises) were with possession/custody of Sh. Harivender Kumar JE(O).
(b) Documents in support of 1(a) above be supplied. (certified copies)
2(a) While transferred for misuse cell to the civil Eng. Deptt. of Sh. Harivender Kumar, whether the
official seals were handed over to the JE/JE’s who took over the charge from Sh. Harvinder Kumar
in the year 2008.
(b) Documents in support of 2(a) above be supplied. (certified copies)
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):-
1 (a) Total 3 nos. of seals were used for sealing purpose
(b) No such record is available.
2 (a) Official seals were handed over to:
(i) Sh. A.K. Tigga one seal on dated 29/09/2007.
(ii) Sh. Bhgwan Singh, J.E. 2 seals on dated 12/10/2007.
(b) Documents in support of 2 (a) above are available. Copy of the same can be collected.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information received from PIO
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
“The applicant is satisfied with the answers regarding para 1(a), (b) and 2(a).
For Para 2(b), the documents supplied to the applicant shall be given again to Sh. A.R. Dhawan, without any
charges. Sh. Harender Kumar, J.E. B.P.(S) will be provide these documents shall be verified by APIO, the
applicant should collect the copies from the APIO office.
The applicant is found satisfied as no other query is pending of his RTI application.”
Page 1 of 2
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Goel, Public Information Officer & DCA; Mr. Rajesh Gupta, APIO & Architect;
The Respondent shows that he has provided all the relevant information to the Appellant. He has
however has brought four pages of information which is balance and is directed to send it to the Appellant
before 25 March 2011.
The RTI application was received by the PIO on 05/05/2010 and the information should have been supplied
before 05/06/2010. Instead the information has been given on 20/07/2010. The Respondent has shown the
movement of the RTI application which shows gross incompetence and carelessness in the Department. The
then PIO Mr. A. M. Athale, DCA received the RTI application on 05/05/2010 and then waited for 12 days
before seeking assistance of AE(Misuse) Mr. C. L. Meena of 17/05/2010. AE(Misuse) replied after 35 days
on 22/06/2010 that he did not have the information. Hence the RTI Application was sent to JE-BP(s) who
have the information on 20/07/2010 within 19 days. It is evident that the then PIO and the Deemed PIO
AE(Misuse) are guilty of not applying their minds and their time for the RTI Application properly.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to send the balance four pages of information to the Appellant
before 25 March 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the then
PIO Mr. A. M. Athale, DCA and deemed PIO Mr. C. L. Meena, AE(Misuse) within 30 days as
required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the then PIO & deemed 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 their 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.
The then PIO Mr. A. M. Athale, DCA and deemed PIO Mr. C. L. Meena, AE(Misuse) will present
themselves before the Commission at the above address on 06 April 2011 at 03.00PM 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.
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.
18 March 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(KJ)
CC through Mr. Rakesh Goel, Public Information Officer & DCA:
To, 1- The then PIO Mr. A. M. Athale, DCA 2- Deemed PIO Mr. C. L. Meena, AE(Misuse) Page 2 of 2