CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/001443/4159Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001443
Appellant : Mr. Ashok Sadana
B-39, West Nizamuddin
New Delhi-13
Respondent : Asstt. Registrar (CND) & PIO
Office of the Registrar Cooperative
Societies, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old
Courts Building, Parliament Street, New
Delhi-110001
RTI application filed on : 26/03/2009
PIO replied : Not enclosed
First Appeal filed on : 18/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 29/05/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 08/06/2009
The Appellant sought information regarding Application for Membership by Mrs.
Gagandeep Kaur, Affidavit submitted by Society, date when her Membership was
approved by Ld. RCS.
1. Photocopy of the Application for Membership by Mrs. Gagandeep Kaur, M. N0-513-
N as submitted in RCS office before the Verification by LD.RCS on 25.11.2003 for
clearance for Draw of Lots.
2. Photocopy of the Affidavit submitted by Society at the time of Verification by Ld.
RCS for clearance for Draw of Lots as filed by Ms. Gagndeep Kaur, M. No. 513-N
with her Membership application.
3. Photocopy of the Proof of being a resident of Delhi with address submitted by Society
at the time of Verification dated 25.11.2003 by Ld. RCS for clearance for Draw of
Lots as file by Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, M. No. 513-N with her Membership application.
4. The date when her Membership was approved by Ld. RCS.
5. The date when Society submitted the above three documents as mentioned in Item
Nos 1 to 2 in respect of Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, M. No. 513-N for verification &
clearance of her Membership by Ld. RCS for the purpose of Draw of Lots and
forwarding her name to DDA as eligible member?
6. If the member is found to have not submitted any of the above documents, does the
RCS Office rejects or forwards her name to DDA for Draw of Lots?
Reply of PIO:
The reply of PIO has not been enclosed.
Asstt. Registrar (CND) transferred the application to the President/Secretary, CGHS Ltd. on
16/04/2009. However, after the first appeal, the Asstt. Registrar (CND) had directed on
26/05/2009 to the President/Secretary, Nav Sansad Vihar CGHS Ltd. to provide information to
the Appellant.
Page 1 of 3
Grounds for First Appeal:
The Appellant had requested information from RCS Office Records which were Public Records.
He had to say that his application was forwarded wrongly to the Society.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
FAA mentioned in his order that reply had not been received from the society although the
application had already been referred to them. Assistant Registrar has been directed to procure
the information from the society and supply the same to the Appellant. In case the Appellant did
not get the reply or gets incomplete reply Appellant might approach that office thereafter.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Inspite of appeal to the Joint Registrar-I & Appellate Authority, RCS Office, the Appellant has
wrongly directed the Asstt. Registrar to procure the requisite information from the society.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing on 16 July 2009:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ashok Sadana
Respondent: Mr. Tej Singh, PIO
The information sought by the Appellant should be with the Registrar of Society as per their
rules and normal functioning. The PIO admits this but states that the file is ‘not traceable’. The
RCS has a certain function of containing certain information and regulating the working of
societies. If this information is not available with the RCS there is a serious doubt about its
purpose of existence since it cannot be doing its function of regulating the societies. RCS
reputedly claims that the information which it should have is not available and directs various
societies to provide the informations. This act of RCS has no basis in Law.
Looking at this the Commission directs the PIO to ensure that the names of all the societies
under the Control of the Public Authority details of the registration and dates on which the
Annual Returns are submitted by the societies must be put up on its website as part of its Section
4 compliance.
Decision dated 16 July 2009:
The appeal was allowed. The PIO was directed to give the information to the Appellant before
31 July 2009. The PIO was also directed to ensure that the Section 4 compliance mentioned
above was done before 15 August 2009 and a Compliance Report sent to the Commission before
20 August 2009.
Adjunct decision announced on 4 January 2010:
Based on a letter of non-compliance dated 03/08/2009 received from the Appellant, the
Commission issued a show cause notice on 25/08/2009 wherein the PIO & AR (CND) was
directed to send the complete information to the Appellant by 17/09/2009 and to give a written
explanation as to why a penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 20(1) of the RTI
Act. The Commission received a letter dated 15/09/2009 from Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Asst.
Registrar (CND) stating that the matter had been put up to a senior officer to initiate the process
of reconstructing of records with respect to Query No. 1 to 3 as the records were not available.
The Commission has now received a letter dated 09/12/2009 from the Appellant, wherein he has
alleged the information sent to him is still incomplete.
Page 2 of 3
The PIO & AR (CND) is directed to provide the reconstructed records to the Appellant
before 25/01/2010. A copy of the information must be delivered to the Under Secretary &
Deputy Registrar, by 25/01/2010. If the records have not been reconstructed till date, a police
complaint will be filed complaining about the theft/loss of the documents. A certificate from the
Registrar Co-operative Societies about the theft/loss of the file will also be provided to the
Appellant and the Commission before 25/01/2010.
The Commission will initiate penalty proceedings against the PIO & AR (CND) under
Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 if there is failure to comply with the afore-mentioned direction
of the Commission.
The Commission observes that in his letter dated 28/08/2009, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AR
(CND) had stated that the complete information in compliance of the Commission’s order with
regard to Section 4 could not be uploaded on the website as collecting the information was a time
consuming process and it would take a couple of months to comply with the order. The
Commission has perused the website of the Department and it appears that the order of the
Commission has not been complied with till date and information as directed by the Commission
has not been placed on the website. The PIO is hereby directed to ensure that the Commission’s
direction with regard to Section 4 is complied with before 31 January 2010. If the non-
compliance continues beyond 31 January 2010, the Commission will be constrained to take
appropriate action.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
4 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj
Page 3 of 3