CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000846/3571Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000846
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Kalu Ram Sharma
2875, Gali Jajam Puria,
Hauz Kazi,
Delhi-110006.
Respondent : Mr. Banbari Lal
Asst. Registrar (East)
o/o Registrar of Cooperative Societies, GNCTD
Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001
RTI application filed on : 14/11/2008
PIO replied : 15/12/2009
First appeal filed on : Not Mentioned
First Appellate Authority order : 09/03/2009
Second Appeal received on : 21/04/2009
Information sought:
The Appellant in his RTI has sought following information(s):-
a) Is it true that the membership of Mr. Harikant Tyagi (Present President), Mr.
R.P.Dureja, Mr.Raman Lal Aggarwal and Mr Kalu Sharma was transferred to
someone else? If yes then provide name and address of those people.
b) Please give the details of the deposited amount, original date and receipt of the
amount received by the new members.
c) On which date has these members are given membership of the society?
The PIO’s Reply:
The PIO replied to the appellant that the sought information could not be provided as it
relates to the third parties as defined under Section 2 (n) of RTI Act 2005. The information
sought for is protected and exempted under section 8(1)(d)(e) read with (j) of the RTI Act
2005.
The First Appellant Authority’s Order:
The First Appellant Authority ordered, “It was clarified to the appellant that he cannot ask the
personal details of other members. During the discussion, it emerged that apparently the
appellant is aggrieved by the fact that although few members were junior to him have been
allotted plots, he being on same pedestal have been denied the same. The representative of
the society stated that the entire allotment in the society has been done by the special bench
of Delhi High Court, which examined the eligibility of each and every member of the society
before clearing it. At this stage it cannot be re-opened by an authority inferior to the High
Court of Delhi. I agree with the view of the society and hold that the appellant is more
interested in reopening the issue already examined by the High Court instead of seeking
information for which he is not entitled.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Kalu Ram Sharma
Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Munjal representing Delhi School Teachers Cooperative Society
The information was sought by the appellant from the PIO of the Registrar of Societies. The
registrar of societies has wrongly transferred it to the Delhi School Teachers Cooperative
Society who has claimed exemption under Section 8(1) (d), (e) & (j), without giving any
reasons as how these exemptions apply. The respondent points out that the society is not a
public authority as defined under the Act and therefore not obliged to give any information to
the appellant. The FAA Mr. D.N.Singh in registrar of cooperative societies has passed an
order on 09/03/2009 rejecting the first appeal, which does not appear to have any basis in
law.
However it is necessary to get the public information officer of the RCS to either provide the
information or offer any logical reasons for rejection. Since the PIO of RCS has given no
reason for rejection he will now have to provide the information to the appellant.
Decision dated 4 June 2009:
The appeal was allowed. The PIO of RCS was directed to provide the information to the
Appellant before 20 June 2009.
Facts leading to the show cause hearing on 17 December 2009:
The Commission has received letters on 13/08/2009 and 26/10/2009 from the
Appellant, wherein he has alleged that information sent to him by the PIO vide letter dated
17/06/2009 was incomplete and therefore not in compliance with the order of the
Commission. Based on this the Commission directed the PIO vide a notice dated 11/11/2009
to provide complete and correct information to the Appellant before 07/12/2009. He was
further directed to appear before the Commission at the above-mentioned address on
17/12/2009 at 3.30 p.m. along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty
should not be imposed on him under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.
Relevant facts arising during show cause hearing on 17 December 2009:
The following persons were present:
Appellant: Mr. K.R. Sharma
Respondent: Mr. Banbari Lal, PIO
Mr. Banbari Lal states that the rest of the information sought by the Appellant is not available
and may not have been submitted by the Society to the RCS. The PIO is directed to give a
statement in writing to the Appellant that no other information relating to his queries is
available on the records with the RCS. This statement will be certified (along with the stamp
of the RCS) by the PIO. The statement will be sent to the Appellant before 15 January 2010
and a copy of the statement will be submitted to the Commission along with proof of dispatch
of statement to the Appellant before 20 January 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
17 December 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(GJ)