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/2008/00882/SG/1422
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00882/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr.Bular Pal,
B-69, Gali No.10, Near Gas Godown,
Laxmi Vihar, Buradi,
New Delhi.
Respondent 1 : PIO,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
O/o Divisional Commissioner Office,
5 Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi-110054.
RTI application filed on : 28/12/2007
PIO replied : 25/01/2008
First appeal filed on : 22/02/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 22/04/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 21/05/2008
Information Sought:
The Appellant had filed an application seeking information regarding the rules and
regulations related to the Insurance of the Govt. Vehicle. The Appellant had asked total
18 queries related to this topic.
The PIO’s Reply:
The PIO had replied the information point wise for all the 18 queries.
The First Appellate Authority Ordered:
“The information sought has been replied by PIO. Most of the issues raised by the
Appellant is in the nature of advice, opinion etc; which is not covered sub-section (f) of
section 2 of the RTI Act, 20005.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr.S.K.Khosla SDM, HQ on behalf of Mr. Vinay Kumar PIO
The respondent has denied certain information based on their understanding of a circular
issued by DOPT which they have not brought. The Commission takes a dim view of
respondents claiming certain circulars which they do not bring with them, resulting in
wasting the time of the Commission. This shows a very careless attitude in their working.
However, the Commission gives them time upto 1.00pm today to present the circular
they wish to rely on.
The decision if reserved.
Decision:
An uncertified copy of an office memorandum dated 12/06/2008 was presented by the
respondent within time. The said uncertified copy of memorandum is taken of record by
the commission considering it to be true and correct. The said office memorandum is
numbered as No. 10/2/2008-IR Government of India, Ministry of Personal, Public
Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personal and Training.
On bare perusal of the above office memorandum, the Commission finds that the said
Memorandum is of 12/06/2008. The Appellant had filed its RTI application on
28/12/2007. PIO replied on the said application on 25/01/2008. First Appeal was filed on
22/02/2008. First Appellate Authority order is of 22/04/2008. Second Appeal filed before
the Commission is filed on 21/05/2008. The office Memorandum is of 12/06/2008.
At this stage the Commission feels any office memorandum which is issued after PIO had
made RTI application reply cannot be relied upon by the PIO for denial of information. In
the present case the respondent/PIO is relying on the Office Memorandum which is
issued after filing of the Second Appeal. The Commission if of the view that the said
Office Memorandum on which the respondent is relying cannot be of any assistance.
However it is made clear that the Commission has not gone in the merits of the Office
Memorandum.
The Appeal is allowed.
The respondent is directed to supply all the information to the appellant which is
available with him. In case of the information which is not available with him, he is
directed to transfer those to the all the concerned PIO and inform the same to the
appellant.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
30 January 2009
(Any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)