CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003235/10355
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003235
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Anwar Khan,
Chief Counseling Officer,
RTI Centre, National Investigation Bureau,
P.O. Box No. 11658,
Post Office Puspa Bhawan,
New Delhi-110062
Respondent : Ms. Juhi Mukherjee
Public Information Officer & SDM
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
O/o The S.D.M. (Hauz Khas),
Old Tehsil Building, Mehrauli,
New Delhi – 110030.
RTI application filed on : 12/08/2010 PIO replied : 25/08/2010 First appeal filed on : 06/09/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 12/10/2010 Second Appeal received on : 19/11/2010 Information Sought:
The appellant sought information regarding fertilizers that are provided with adulteration in certain areas.
The queries are:
1. To provide with the number of members of committee dealing with adulteration in Village Hauz
Khas, sub-division. And to provide with the names of the members involved in such committee
formed in year 2008-09. Also to inform about the number of FIRs filed for such adulteration.
2. To provide with the number of members of committee dealing with adulteration in Village
Kalkaji. And to provide with the names of the members involved in such committee formed in
year 2008-09. Also to inform about the number of FIRs filed for such adulteration.
3. To inform about the time required to initiate proceedings against adulteration cases.
4. To inform, if Joint Operation is to be initiated, then the information about the adulteration team
should not be given, so that the person responsible can be caught.
Reply of PIO:
No reply given by PIO.
First Appeal:
No response given by PIO.
Order of the FAA:
Sh. Anwar Khan flied appeal on 8.10.2010 against the P10/ SDM(KJ & SDMO-IK) in respect of ID
No.Nil before the undersigned. The notices for hearing in the matter were issued to the appellant and
PI0/SDM(KJ) & SDM(•I-IK) on 13.10.10 for hearing in the matter on 1.11.10 at 3.00 p.m. Dr.Pramod
Kothekar, Food Inspector, authorised representative from the office of PIO/SDM(KJ),none from the office
of PI0/SDM(HK) . The appellant was not present despite service of notice upon him through speed post.
On perusal of the appeal filed by Sh. Anwar Khan, it appears that the reply has been furnished by the
PIO/SDM(KJ) well in time vide letter dated 19.10.10 but the PIO/SDM(HK) has not provided the
information to the appellant even after the expiry of the time limit under the RTI Act. PIO/SDM (HK) is
directed to provide the information to the appellant within 10 days on receipt of this order. PIO/SDM(HK)
is further directed to dispose off the RTI applications within the stipulated period under the RTI Act.
Appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information provided by PIO despite the order of the FAA.
Decision:
The appellant has stated that no information was provided by SDM (HK) despite the order
of the FAA.
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs PIO, SDM (HK) to provide the information to the appellant
before 25 December 2010.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO, SDM (HK) 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.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1) before 30 December, 2010. He will also send 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.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
8 December 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PBR)