CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003253/10759
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003253
Relevant Factsemerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Dr. Jitendra Nath Gupta
4526, Dai Wara, Roshan Pura,
Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006
Respondent : Mr. Ashok Gupta
Public Information Officer &
Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil Lines)
Revenue Department
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
1, Kripa Narain Marg, Delhi-110054
RTI application filed on : 25/06/2010
PIO replied : 06/08/2010
First appeal filed on : 03/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 04/10/2010
Second Appeal received on : 22/11/2010
Information Sought:
The appellant sought a copy of “The Delhi Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1966”.
Reply of the Public Information Commissioner:
The PIO replied that this information does not pertain to their office.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The PIO didn’t give the right reply and it was late.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The PIO was directed to furnish with a modified reply within 10 days of the order.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The information sought by the appellant was provided by the PIO but it was late. The PIO made a
misleading and wrong statement in his first reply. Therefore the PIO is liable under The Service Rules.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Dr. Jitendra Nath Gupta;
Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Chand, KGO on behalf of Mr. Ashok Gupta, PIO & SDM(Civil Lines);
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, APIO & Sub-Registrar(Kashmere Gate);
The appellant had sought copy of the “The Delhi Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1966”. Though the
PIO apparently knew that the information would be available with Registrar DC North he did not seek the
assistance of Registrar, DC North and provided the information but only stated that it pertain to registrar
DC North. Subsequently this information was provided to the Appellant when he went for the first
hearing on 04/10/2010.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided to the Appellant.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO 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. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1).
A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show
cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 27 January 2011 at 11.30am
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1). He will also send the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and
submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.
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
03 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST)