CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002005/5080
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002005
Appellant : Mr. Haniff Ur Rehehaman,
B-68, Second Floor,
Sarvodaya Enclave,
New Delhi-110017
Respondent : Mr. A.V. Prem Nath
Public Information Officer & ADM
Govt. NCT of Delhi,
Addl. Deputy Magistrate (Central),
14, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi-110002
RTI application filed on : 22/12/2008
PIO replied : 23/01/2009
First Appeal filed on : 12/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 30/06/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 19/08/2009
S.No Information Sought PIO's Reply
a) Name and address of the Victims List of four victims had been provided.
b) How much amount was given in cases No such record is available in this sub-
of injury, death and House burned and Division as Districts comes into
destruction of the property during the existence in 1997 only. The record
1984 riots? might be available with the Office of
the Divisional Commission Delhi
c) How much amount was given in cases Sr. No 1 Rs. 2, 88, 261/-
of injury, death and House burned and Sr. No.2, Rs. 90, 000/-
destruction of the property after the Sr. No.3. Rs 2, 000/-
announcement made by the Prime Sr. No. 4. Rs 67,500/-
Minister Shri Manmohan Singh.
d) If possible, provide information on CD CD may be provided on consolidated
information of the District.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Appellant stated information was incomplete. As the PIO replied that SDM (Darya Ganj) had no
such information in his Sub-division as districts came into existence in 1997 and it might be
available with the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi.
Appellant also mentioned that PIO should collect the desired information or forward his
Application to the concerned authorities.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
FAA mentioned that there was no any infirmity in the reply furnished to the 4 parts of the query.
There was evident from the reply to part (b) of the query that this part of the question should
have been transferred to the concerned authority by PIO.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Incomplete information. Information had not been given regarding compensation provided to
1984 riot victims.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Rekha on behalf of Mr. Haniff Ur Rehehaman
Respondent: Mr. A.V. Prem Nath, PIO & ADM; Mr. Y.P.Malhotra, Thesildar;
The PIO states that he had asked the Appellant to pay Rs. 44/- for the 22 pages of information
which was not paid. The Appellant is directed to pay Rs.44/- and collect the information.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information will be provided to the Appellant on payment of additional fee.
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 October 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj