CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002457/9824Adjunct-I
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002457
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Alok Ganda
12/29, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi – 110008.
Respondent (1) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Gangar,
Additional Secretary (Revenue)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Revenue Department
5, Shyam Nath Marg, New Delhi
Respondent (2) : Mr. Chirenjeet
PA to Principal Secretary
O/o the Principal Secretary
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
5, Shyam Nath Marg, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 18/09/2009
PIO replied : Not replied
First appeal filed on : 08/03/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 16/04/2010
Second Appeal received on : 04/09/2010
Notice of Hearing sent on : 21/09/2010
Hearing held on : 19/10/2010
Information Sought:
File notings/decision by various functionaries/officers taken on the letter DO No. 125/09-10 dated
04/02/2009 addressed to Govt. of NCT of Delhi by Mr. Karan Singh Tanwar.
Reply of the PIO:
The Dy. Secy (G) vide his letter dated 25/09/2009 had transferred to PIO & ADM (South).
First Appeal:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO within the stipulated time.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA directed the ADM(S) to furnish complete information to the Appellant within a week from
receipt of the order. He further requested the O/o Divisional Commissioner to furnish the requisite
information to the Appellant.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the FAA’s order by the PIO.
Page 1 of 3
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on October 19, 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Alok Ganda;
Respondent : Mr. S. K. Kaushik, UDC on behalf of Mr. Eda Raja Babu, PIO & ADM (South);
“The order of the FAA has not been implemented. The respondent is giving a very lame excuse
that the file was with the Divisional Commissioner. Irrespective of where the file is the information has to
be provided either by seeking assistance under Section 5(4) or by transferring the RTI application under
Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. The respondent shows that he had written a letter on 11/05/2010 to
ADM(HQ) and again sent a reminder on 17/09/2010. Hence it appears that ADM(HQ) had not sent the
information to the appellant.”
Decision dated October 19, 2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“ADM(HQ) Mr. Gangar is directed to provide the information to the appellant
before 10 November 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
ADM(HQ) Mr. Gangar within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises
a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has
clearly ordered the information to be given.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on him.
ADM(HQ) Mr. Gangar will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
08 December 2010 at 03.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not
be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the
information to the appellant.”
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on December 8, 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Alok Ganda;
Respondent: Mr. Kuldeep Singh Gangar, Additional Secretary (Revenue) & ADM (HQ).
“Further to the order of the Commission dated 19/10/2010, file noting/ decision as available on
record was provided to the Appellant on 04/11/2010.
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Gangar, who is also the FAA, stated that he received letters dated 11/05/2010 and
17/09/2010 from the office of ADM (S). However, the information could not be provided as the relevant
file was in the office of the Principal Secretary (Revenue). In other words, despite being aware of the
provisions of Sections 5(4) and 6(3) of the RTI Act, Mr. Gangar failed to furnish the information within
the requisite time. The Commission asked Mr. Gangar why he did not obtain the information and provide0
to the Appellant though ADM (South) had sent a letter on 11/05/2010 and again sent a reminder on
17/09/2010.
Mr. Gangar states that he has sought the assistance of Mr. Chiranjeet, PA to Principal Secretary (Revenue)
who did not provide the information. The Commission therefore issues a showcause notice to Mr.
Page 2 of 3
Kuldeep Singh Gangar, Additional Secretary (Revenue) and Mr. Chiranjeet, PA to Principal Secretary
(Revenue) to appear before the Commission on 12 January 2010 at 04.30PM.”
Adjunct Decision dated 08 December 2010:
“The Commission directs Mr. Kuldeep Singh Gangar, Additional Secretary (Revenue) and Mr.
Chiranjeet, PA to Principal Secretary (Revenue) to appear before the Commission on 12 January 2011 at
04.30PM to showcase why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on them for not providing the
information to the Appellant.”
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on 12 January 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Alok Ganda;
Respondent: Mr. Kuldeep Singh Gangar, Additional Secretary (Revenue) and Mr. Chiranjeet, PA to
Principal Secretary (Revenue);
The Commission has received a letter from Mr. D. M. Spolia, Principal Secretary (Revenue) in which he
has stated that, “The fact is that neither Shri Kuleep Singh Gangar, Additional Secretary in this
department, nor Shri Charan Jit, my Personal Assistant, are responsible for the perceived delay in
furnishing the information to the applicants. The file was under submission to me.
It is fairly voluminous record. Also, an inquiry report had been submitted to the government. I Am of the
view that this needed to be analyzed within the government before facts and findings or the inquiry could
be divulged to anyone. I also was of the view that report may required soliciting approvals of the
government on issues. Accordingly, the file was retained for the said purposes of study and analysis. The
consequence of course was the self-evident delay.
I, therefore, request that no penalty be imposed on my officers.”
It thus appears that the principal secretary revenue had reasons to believe that the information may be
exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Since he needed more time to deliberate on this the
information could not be provided to the Appellant. In view of this the Commission drops the penalty
proceedings.
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 the RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
12 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)
Page 3 of 3