Posted On by &filed under Central Information Commission, Judgements.


Central Information Commission
Mr.Jakam Singh vs Ndmc, Gnct Delhi on 18 March, 2011
                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             Club Building (Near Post Office)
                           Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                  Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                    Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003566/11334Adjunct
                                                                   Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003566

Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Hakam Singh,
J-510/8, Sector-16,Rohini
New Delhi- 110089.

Respondent (1) : Mrs. Chitra
Public Information Officer & Dy. Director Liaison,
New Delhi Municipal Council,
Palika Kendra,
New Delhi-110001,

Respondent (2) : Ms. S. R. Spolia
Public Information Officer & Dy. Director
NDMC, GNCT Delhi
Navyug School Education Society,
N.P.Primary School,
Hanuman Lane, New Delhi-110001.

RTI application filed on             :       04/08/2010
PIO replied                          :       13/08/2010
First appeal filed on                :       09/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order      :       30/09/2010.
Second Appeal received on            :       20/12/2010

 Sl.                         Information Sought                                   Reply of the PIO
1.     Details of action taken on appellant's representation by Director   Not     referred      by    this
       Liaison, NDMC SH Phillip Bara                                       Department.
2.     Copies of the file noting on which matter was examined,             Question does not arise in view
       investigated by Liaison Director, NDMC and competent                of answer to query 1.
       authority, NDMC
3.     Details of irregularities that Director Liaison observed in         Same as above.

compliance of DOPT OM’s on special recruitment drive in the
undersigned representation.

First Appeal:

Misleading and unsatisfactory reply sent by PIO.

Order of the FAA:

“Complete information was not provided to the appellant as the matter to NSES, therefore PIO (NSES) is
directed to provide to the appellant complete information within 7 days of receipt of this order.”

Ground of the Second Appeal:

Page 1 of 3

No information was provided by PIO(NSES)

Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 07/02/2011:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Hakam Singh
Respondent : Mrs. Chitra, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director Liaison;

“The PIO admits that PIO of Navyug School Education Society (NSES) has not provided any
information after the order of the FAA. A reminder has been sent on 24/11/2010 and on 28/01/2011 to the
PIO of NSES. On 02/02/2011 again another reminder has been sent. The Appellant also states he has not
received any information from the PIO NSES so far.”

Decision dated 07/02/2011:

The Appeal was allowed.

“PIO, NSES Ms. Spolia is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant
before 28 February 2011.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO,
NSES within 30 days as required by the law.

From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO NSES 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. She has further refused to obey the orders of her superior officer,
which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate
Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.

It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A show cause notice is
being issued to her, and she is directed give her reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
should not be levied on her.

PIO, NSES Ms. S. R. Spolia will present herself before the Commission at the above address on
18 March 2011 at 10.30am alongwith her written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on her as mandated under Section 20 (1). She will also submit proof of having given the
information to the appellant.

It also appears that they persistently refused to give the information inspite of repeated reminders
to the respondent hence the Commission is also considering recommending disciplinary actions
under Section 20(2) against her.”

Relevant facts emerging during the hearing on 18/03/2011:
Appellant: Mr. Hakam Singh
Respondent: Ms. S.R. Spolia, PIO; Mr. R.K. Verma, Deemed PIO & Jr. clerk and Mr. Vikas Mathur, AO
The PIO Ms. Spolia has submitted that in compliance of the Commission’s order dated 07/02/2011
the information has been provided. She has further submitted that since the work related to the RTI
application has exclusively been dealt by the Deemed PIO & Jr. Clerk Mr. R.K. Verma, the FAA’s order
dated 30/09/2010 was also forwarded to Mr. Verma. Mr. R.K. Verma has submitted that in another matter
before the Commission the PIO was directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the same
Appellant. The inspection was facilitated on 12 & 13/10/2010 and some photocopies were also given to
the Appellant. Mr. R.K. Sharma is claiming that since the records were already provided to the Appellant,
no information was provided after the FAA’s order.

The Appellant has submitted that the information provided after the Commission’s order is still not
complete since the copy of file noting sought in query 2 has not been provided to him till date. The PIO
Page 2 of 3
has provided all the information. The Appellant states that the file notings have not been provided to him.
The respondent Mr. R. K. Verma states that there are no file notings available with regard to query-2. The
Appellant shows a letter by Director (Liaison) asking Director (Education) to take necessary action on the
representation received from Mr. Hakam Singh. The PIO Mrs. Spolia is directed to inform the Appellant
if any action has been taken on this. She will give a copy of the communication showing action that was
taken alongwith file notings. If no action has been taken this will be communicated alongwith the reasons
why no action has been taken, if available on file notings. If no reasons have been recorded for not taking
action this will be stated. The PIO Mrs. Spolia is directed to give the information to the Appellant on this
before 30 March 2011.

The Respondent states that similar information has been given multiple times to the Appellant. The
Commission in view of this drops the penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) and disciplinary
proceedings under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act.

Adjunct Decision:

The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 30 March 2011.

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
18 March 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AP)

Page 3 of 3


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

11 queries in 0.211 seconds.