CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001612/4519
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001612
Appellant : Mr. Dharambir Singh,
House No. 434, Village &
Post - Bankher, Narela,
Delhi - 110040
Respondent : Mr. Kunal
Public Information Officer,
SDM, Govt of NCT of Delhi
O/o SDM, Narela at Alipur,
North West District, Delhi-110038
RTI application filed on : 03/02/2009
PIO replied : 28/02/2009
First Appeal filed on : 03/03/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 16/04/2009
Second Appeal received on : 03/07/2009
Sl. Information Sought PIO's reply
1. The name and designation of the investigating Gram Sevak Sri Rajpal Singh and Sri
officer of the tube well and the attested Mahendra pal Singh , Agriculture
photocopy of the report. Development Officer and the copy of
the report is enclosed.
2. The name of the concerned Area Supervisor As given above.
and the name of the supervisor who has
forwarded the investigation report.
3. The attested photocopy of the affidavit, which Contact NDPL office Narela for NOC
contains signature of all the account-holders and Contact Delhi Municipal
regarding NOC, attested photocopies of all the Corporation for the deceased account
account holders, information regarding whether holders.
the Death Certificates are submitted in original
or in the form of photocopy.
4. Attested Photocopy of the NOC of Tube well Copy of Letter/ NOC dated 10/06/2008
A.P. written to the Manager NDPL Narela is enclosed.
dated 10/06/2008.
5. Attested photocopy of the letter NOC with- Photocopy is enclosed.
drawn dated 08/10/2008 written to the Manager
NDPL.
6. Attested photocopy of the letter dated Copy of letter is enclosed and the
05/12/2008/1513 written to the Manager NDPL circumstances in which the letter was
and the attested photocopy of all the Notings of written were given in the letter.
this letter regarding the evidences shown
whether the letter was written under the undue
influences.
7. Attested photocopy of the Noting of the reason In this regard the discussion between
for the delay in the final decision from Deputy Commissioner level and this
05/12/2008 to 02/02/2009, the same should be office is on hold.
sent to the Deputy Commissioner.
8. Attested photocopy of the enclosed Khata It is related to Patwari.
Khatauni No. 162/121.
9. The names of the account holders, who has not It is related to NDPL Narela office.
signed/ given thumb impression on the enclosed
affidavit and the Khata Khatauni.
10. The Deputy Commissioner has sent you for the In this regard the discussion between
re-investigation on 11/12/2008, have you re- Deputy Commissioner level and this
investigated? If yes then the attested photocopy office is on hold.
of the final report and if no the what is the
reason?
11. What is the evidence, on the basis of that you It is informed to the NDPL on the basis
have cancelled the letter dated 08/10/2008 and of your letter Dated 08/10/2008 that the
have ordered to maintain status-quo on the NOC of this office dated 10/06/2008
letter dated 10/06/2008. may be treated as drawn till the proper
NOC from other co-sharers is submitted
by the applicant, copy of letter enclosed.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Points no. 3 and 7 to 11 given in the reply of PIO are unsatisfactory and incomplete.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
It is found that the reply given by PIO is satisfactory. Hence, Appeal dismissed.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Points no. 3 and 7 to 11 given in the reply of PIO are unsatisfactory and incomplete.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Dharambir Singh
Respondent: Mr. Deepak on behalf of PIO Mr. Kunal
The PIO will give the following information to the Appellant which has not been given earlier:
1- Query 3- Copy of the affidavit by the Co-sharer.
2- Query 7- Copy of notings and correspondence with decision taken if any on file
regarding whether the NOC was issued correctly or not.
3- Query 8- Copy of the Khata & Khatauni of Serial no. 162/121.
4- Query 10- If any enquiry has been made into the matter a copy of the report including
the file notings.
5- Query 11- Letters and notings evidencing the basis on which the first NOC was
given, then withdrawn and then kept in abeyance.
The PIO was asked why the entire information had not been given initially. He states that the
person responsible for giving information late is BDO Mr. Hans Raj Singh, BDO Office
Complex, Alipur, New Delhi.
The First Appellate Authority Mr. Madhup Vyas has also failed to discharge his duty with any
responsibility.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information mentioned above to the Appellant before 10 September 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO Mr. Hans Raj Singh 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. 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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 14 September 2009 at
10.30am 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.
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
21 August 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)RA
CC:
Mr. Hans Raj Singh
BDO
BDO Office Complex,
Alipur, New Delhi.