CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110066
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01235/SG/1048
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01235
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ajay Soni
B-67, Antriksh Apartment,
Sector-14, Extn., Rohini,
Delhi - 110 085
Respondent 1. : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar
Public Information Officer
Delhi Fire Service,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Cannaught Lane,
New Delhi – 110 001
RTI filed on : 27/02/2008
APIO : 11/04/2008
First Appeal filed on : 07/04/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 24/06/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 14/07/2008
Information Sought:
The appellant had sought information regarding safety measures, checking/inspections, illegal
encroachments, fire fighting system and number of high-rise residential buildings in Delhi
through his five questions.
The PIO’s Reply:
The PIO in his reply on 11/04/2008 mentioned that the information was already supplied wide
office order no. ID/386/RTI/IDFS/HQ/2008/3167 dated 14/03/2008. However photocopies were
again supplied to them.
Not satisfied by the Reply of PIO he appellant filed First Appeal on 14/07/2008.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
The first appellate authority on dated 24/06/2008 ordered that “matter is always remanded back
in Judicial proceeding. As per CIC directions, applicant in Right to Information Act can be
directed to inspect the file if information desired is lengthy and scattered. Moreover, your RTI
application was asking question whereas under RTI Act and Rules, question and quarries may
not be answered. Only photocopy of available record may be asked and will be supplied to you.
Para(c) of the appeal has been perused by me and Appellate Authority is of the opinion that these
cannot be answered.”
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. Dhirendra Kumar PIO
The respondent has provided the information to the appellant. Infact the PIO has provided
interpretation of rules which he has no authority to do. The appellant is not satisfied since he has
a grouse that the Public authority enforces fire safety norms in his building whereas it is lax in
other buildings. This however is not the domain of RTI.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
14th January, 2009
(For any further correspondence, please mention the decision number for a quick disposal)