CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/902031/8800
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/902031
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Dinesh Kaushik,
A-56, Anoop Nagar,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
Sub Divisional Magistrate (Election) (SW),
Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi,
Old Terminal Tax Building,
Kapashera, New Delhi-110037
Deemed Public Information Officer &
AERO- 32,
Through Public Information Officer/ Sub
Divisional Magistrate (Election) (SW),
Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi,
Old Terminal Tax Building,
Kapashera, New Delhi-110037
RTI application filed on : 29/04/2010
PIO replied on : Not on record
First Appeal filed on : 07/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order of : 28/06/2010
Second Appeal received on : 16/07/2010
Information Sought:
The Appellant sought information regarding:
1. Whether the records of AERO A-32 office are duly catalogued and indexed as
mandated by Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act?
2. Power and duties of each officer and employee of AERO AC-32.
3. Procedure followed by AERO AC-32 office in decision making process including
channel of supervision and accountability.
4. Provide details of rules, instructions, manuals and records held by AERO AC-32
or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions.
5. Provide categories of documents that are held by AERO AC-32 or under its
control.
6. Provide details of budget allotted to AERO AC-32 indicating the particulars of all
plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made during last 2
years.
7. Particulars of facilities provided by AERO AC-32 to citizens for obtaining
information.
8. Has the office of AERO AC-32 displayed necessary boards about RTI Act, details
of PIO and FAA?
9. Does the office of AERO have complaint books and suggestion box available for
lodging complaints by public?
10. Procedure of registering grievances against the office of AERO AC-32. Has the
office of AERO AC-32 displayed necessary boards about it?
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
Not on record.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information was furnished by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA observed that the information provided to the Appellant was unsatisfactory.
The AERO- 32 (Uttam Nagar) has taken an arbitrary and negative stand in his reply and
has attempted to block the flow of information. The AERO- 32 was directed to provide
proper, detailed reply to each question raised in the RTI application within 3 working
days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Non- compliance of the order of the FAA.
Decision:
The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. The FAA has
given a clear order dated 28/06/2010 directing the AERO-32, the deemed PIO to provide
the Appellant with a reply within 3 working days. The Appellant has not been provided
with the information requested for despite the order of the FAA. The Commission
therefore directs the PIO/ SDM and AERO- 32, the deemed PIO to provide the
information requested for by the Appellant. Denial of information to an Appellant under
the RTI Act can only be done if what is sought is not “information” as defined under
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act or is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO/
SDM and AERO- 32, the deemed PIO have neither claimed that it is not “information”
nor have they claimed that it is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
The Appeal is allowed. The PIO/ SDM and the AERO- 32, the deemed PIO are
directed to provide the information requested by the Appellant before August 23,
2010.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO/ SDM and AERO- 32,
the deemed PIO are guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under
Section 7(1) by not replying within 30 days as per the requirement of the RTI Act. The
AERO- 32, the deemed PIO has further refused to obey the orders of the FAA, which
raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be mala fide. The FAA
has clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that the actions of the PIO/
SDM and AERO- 32, the deemed PIO attract the penal provisions of Section 20(1) of the
RTI Act. A show cause notice is being issued to them and they are directed to give their
reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
The PIO/ SDM and AERO- 32, the deemed PIO will present themselves before the
Commission at the above address on September 1, 2010 at 12:30 pm along with their
written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as
mandated under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. They will also submit proof of having
given the information to the Appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the
Appellant and for not complying with the order of the FAA, the PIO/ SDM and AERO-
32, the deemed PIO are directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and
direct them to appear before the Commission with them.
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
August 2, 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (VN)