CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003327/10828Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003327
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Jagvesh Kumar Sharma
A-42 & 43, Gali No. 4
Pandav Nagar Complex
Ganesh Nagar, Delhi - 110092
Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Mittal
OSD to Lt. Governor & PIO
Lt. Governor's Secretariat
Raj Niwas, Delhi 110054
RTI application filed on : 03/07/2010
PIO replied : 05/08/2010 & 25/08/2010
First appeal filed on : 01/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 07/10/2010
Second Appeal received on : 26/11/2010
Information Sought:-
1. Weather it is a fact that Shri Shantanu Sen OSD to Lt. Governor Delhi had made the opinion or
advice on file dated 05.09.2007 in my case for All India validation that I am doing the business of
property dealing and chit fund,. If yes, kindly provide the copy of the records in this regard and
under which record it has been established that I am doing a business of property dealing and chit
fund kindly provide the photocopy of this records.
2. If Shri. Shantanu Sen has verified any address of property dealing and chit fund regarding myself
kindly provide the details to me.
3. If Shri. Shantanu Sen has not any record regarding property and chit fund business to me kindly
provide the copy of the rule. Under which rule he had made wrong opinion/advice to Hon’ble Lt.
Governor on dated 05.09.2007 to defame me in society.
4. If Shri. Shantanu Sen had made wrong opinion/advice to Hon’ble Lt. Governor what action has
been taken by Hon’ble Lt, Governor against him. Kindly provide the photocopy of the action taken
report. If action has not been taken kindly provide the reason for it.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):-
Dated 05/08/2010
1. A copy of Note dated 5.9.2007 of Sh. Shantonu Sen, OSD (PG) Governor, may be obtained after
depositing the photocopy fee 2/- either in cash with the Cashier of this office or through …….. in favour
of DDO Raj Niwas.
2&3. These questions do not fall under the definition of “Information” are section 2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005.
4. The observation of Hon’ble Lt. Governor may be perused on the …. dated 5.9.2007 of Sh. Shantonu
Sen, after obtaining the same …..
Page 1 of 3
Reply Dated 25/08/2010
After payment of the additional fee PIO has provided photo copy.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply provided by PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
“The information available with the public authority can only be provided under the RTI Act. In
the instant case information and documents available at this Secretariat had already been provided to the
applicant vide PlO’s letters dated 5.8.2010 and 25.8.2010.”
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
“I have asked simple information if Shri. Shantanu Sen has any record of regarding business of
property dealing and chit fund if Lt. Governor Secretariat has any record in this regards kindly pass the
order to provide me and what are the guidelines in which my case is not fit to grant to All India validity.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 07 January 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Jagvesh Kumar Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. Satish Kanojia, Superintendent on behalf of Mr. Sanjeev Mittal, OSD to LG & PIO;
“Most of the information has been provided to the Appellant based on the available records. The
Appellant wants specific information whether Mr. Shantanu Sen had any record in this regard showing
that the appellant had business of property dealing and chit fund based on which he held that the
Appellant’s case was not fit for grant of All India validity. If there is any such record and attested
photocopy of this must be provided to the Appellant. If there is no record of this the Appellant should be
informed about this.”
Commission’s Decision dated 07 January 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the Appellant before 20 January
2011.”
Facts leading to the showcause hearing on 01 June 2011:
The Commission has received a letter dated 13/04/2011 alleging that the order of the Commission has not
been complied with. On perusal of the letter dated 19/01/2011 of the PIO, the Commission observed that
complete information has not been provided to the Applicant till date,
In view of this it is apparent that the PIO has failed to comply with the order of the Commission and not
provided the complete information with in the time specified in the order. The delay on his part in
providing the information amounts to willful disobedience of the Commission’s order and also raises a
reasonable doubt that the denial of information may be malafide. In view of this, the Commission directed
the PIO to present himself before the Commission on 01 June 2011 al 4:00 pm along with his written
explanations to show cause penalty under Section 20(1) should not be imposed and disciplinary action not
be recommended.
Relevant Facts emerging during showcause hearing on 01 June 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Jagvesh Kumar Sharma
Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kr. Sharma, Superintendent on behalf of Mr. Sanjeev Mittal, OSD to LG & PIO;
The Commission had given a simple order to the PIO to either provide copies of documents based
on which Mr. Shantanu Sen had stated that the appellant had business of property dealing and chit fund.
The Commission has also stated that in case there was no such record this should be stated. The PIO has
Page 2 of 3
done neither. He has claimed that the records could not been traced. The Appellant alleges that there was
no such record and the PIO is guilty of providing false information. The Commission issues a showcause
notice to the PIO Mr. Sanjeev Mittal to present himself before the Commission on 22 June 2011 at
04.00PM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on him for providing false
information to the Appellant on 19/01/2011. The PIO will bring evidence to show that the records existed
and have disappeared.
Adjunct Decision:
The PIO Mr. Sanjeev Mittal is directed to appear before the Commission on
22 June 2011 at 04.00PM with his written submission and evidences to showcause why
penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be levied on him for providing false
information.
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
01 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(KJ)
Page 3 of 3