CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000996/12877
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000996
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Jagvesh Kumar Sharma
A-42 & 43 Gali No.- 4
Pandav Nagar Complex
Ganesh Nagar Delhi - 92
Respondent : Mr. B. M. Jain
Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Home(general) Department
5th Level, A wing, Delhi Sachivalaya, I.P. Estate,
Delhi
RTI application filed on : 10-01-2011
PIO replied to application on : 31-01-2011 & 29-03-2011 (After FAA Order)
First Appeal on filed on : 22-02-2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 22-03-2011
Second Appeal received on : 13-04-2011
No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Shri Shantanu Sen, OSD to Lt. Governor, Transferred to concerned P10/ OSD to LG. However,
Delhi had mentioned in file on dated even after delegation of powers to the State
05.09.2007 that "my case is not fit into the governments in the year 1990 the Delhi Government
category of them persons, who can be continued to follow the instruction of MHA Issued
granted an all India Arm Licenses." Kindly vide letter dated 04-7-89 till the issuance of criterion
provide the guidelines under which my issued by this government in the year 2009.
case is not fit to grant all India validity of
area extension.
2. Who had approved these guidelines? The powers were delegated to State/ UT Govt. in the
Kindly provide the photocopies of the note year 1990, in each and every case, extension of area
sheet in which these guidelines had been validity was allowed with the approval of Lt.
approved. Governor of Delhi by adopting guidelines of Ministry
of Home Affairs on the subject. However a
clarification about the guidelines were issued in the
year 1997 with the approval of the Pr. Secretary
(Home). (Copy enclosed)
3. What were the date of commencement and After delegation of powers to the State governments
last date for implementation of these in the year 1990 the Delhi Government continued to
guidelines in Delhi before 01.01.2010? follow the instruction of MHA issued vide letter
dated 04-7-89 till the issuance of criterion issued by
this government during the month of August 2009
and thereafter the Delhi Government continued to
grant the area validity for under these instruction only
before 01-1-2010.
4. What were the exact dates to consider all Till the issuance of instructions to the DCP/Lic vide
India validity of Arm Licenses under these letter dated 06-8-2009 duly approved by Hon'ble LG.
guidelines from 04.07.1989 to 01.01.2010. this government was following the instructions as
issued by MHA vide letter dated 04-7-89 for grant of
area validity for All India.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information provided is wrong.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PlO is directed to send a reply to the appellant once again in as much precise terms as possible within a
period of 15 days.
Reply of PIO on 29/03/2011: (After FAA's Order):
2. As per record available in the Home General Branch the instruction followed for processing the
case for extension of your NPB Arms license were issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs vide letter No. V-11026/8/89-Arms dated 04-7-89. These instructions were superseded
vide Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs letter No. V11026/106/94- arms dated 11-10-95.
copies of page no. 30/N to 35/N taken from File No. 13/20/2006- HG are enclosed for ready
reference.
3. The instructions applied in your case commenced from the date they were issued. The last date of
implementation of these instructions is not clearly available in the record.
4. The question is not clear. However, the position as explained above, holds good in this regard.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information provided is wrong and misleading.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Jagvesh Kumar Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. B. M. Jain, Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary;
The Appellant has been using multiple RTI applications to show that some decisions denying
him an All India Validity for Arms license were wrong. In the instant case the Appellant is seeking
specific categorical guidelines by which his application had been rejected. The PIO has given copies of
all records available and claims that according to him understandings three different guidelines have
been used in processing the application of the appellant for grant of All India Validity of arms licenses.
The appellant contends that one of the guidelines V-11026/8/89-Arms dated 04/07/1989 was
superseded by MHA guideline D-11026/106/94-Arms dated 11/10/1995. Hence he claims that there is
contradiction since both guidelines are claimed to have been applied in his case. The appellant claims
that in his case only the 1989 guideline is applicable. This is the matter that he will have to agitate else
where.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
Information available on the record has been provided.
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
15 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AA)