CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001694/4702
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001694
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Krishan Lal Uppal
Varun India Products,
52/3, Jheel Kurenja
Delhi-110051
Respondent (1) : Mr. Pradeep Gupta
Public Information Officer,
Jt. Commissioner (RL)
Office of Commissioner of Industries,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Udyog Sadan,
Plot 419, FIE Pratapganj,
Delhi-110092
Respondent: (2) Mr. V.K.Garg,
Chief Manager (Relocation)
DSIIDC,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Udyog Sadan,
Plot 419, FIE Pratapganj,
Delhi-110092
RTI application filed on : 12.02.2009
PIO replied : 12.03.2009
First appeal filed on : 09.04.2009
First Appellate Authority order : 12.05.2009
Second Appeal received on : 13.07.2009
Information sought & PIO's reply:
List of 58 similar units which were given priority allotment under relocation scheme enclosed.
Regarding these please provide following details:
S.no. Information sought Information provided
1 Application no. of above successful units As per record this dept. has no such
list of units given priority allotment
under relocation scheme. Allotment
is done by DSIIDC
2 Date of disposal of their application -do-
3 Complete address of allotted plot ie. Sector no. and plot no. etc. -do-
4 Provide photocopies of all applications of successful applicants -do-
5 On what basis were they considered for priority allotment and -do-
why my unit was not considered even after expiry of 13 long
years. What was the point of consideration?
6 Were above cases of similar categories also referred to the Delhi -do-
Pollution Control Committee for clarification of f/H category as
was done in my case?
7 What reasons for pendency of my application were mentioned in No specific information has been
your RTI reply of 28/08/2006 asked for.
8 Was the existence of unit an issue from 8/11/2004 to 29/07/2007 No specific information has been
for 4 long years? asked for on record
9 Was DPCC reply regarding categorization put on the file by the No specific information has been
officers of your department to the Higher authorities? asked for.
10 I am also enclosing list of 8 other applicants who are No specific information has been
manufacturers of rubber parts whose case was not put Delhi asked for.
pollution control board for classification as in my case. Provide
information as per nos. 1 to 6.
11 Please provide photocopies of noting portion from page 32 Please deposit Rs. 2 per page.
onwards
12 Please provide photocopies of correspondence portion from page No correspondence page 314
314 onwards onwards is available in Relocation
application file no. 31866
13 Who is the villain of this episode? No specific information has been
asked for.
Order of First Appellate Authority:
Questions 1 to 6 relate to DSIIDC and hence should be transferred to them.
Regarding other queries inspection of files may be done. For query 10 applicant should mention name,
application number and other details and seek information.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant has alleged that the PIO and appellate authority are not providing the information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Harish Upal on behalf of Mr. Krishan Lal Uppal
Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Gupta, PIO; Mr. V.K.Garg, DSIIDC, chief Manager (Relocation)
The application was transferred from the Office of the Commissioner to DSIIDC on 12/05/2009. The
application was received by the PIO at the Commissioner Industries office on 25/02/2009. Instead of
transferring the RTI application within 5 days i.e. by 2/03/2009 the PIO waited until 12/05/2009 before
transferring the application to the PIO of DSIIDC. The PIO of Commissioner Industries was well
aware that the information was not with him but was with the PIO of DSIIDC. The PIO of DSIIDC has
not provided any reasonable information but has sent a reply on 01/06/2009 giving an answers to point
1,23 & 4 “The information sought under these points being private information related to the IIIrd
party is not permissible U/s 8(1) (j) & 11 of the RTI ACT 2005.” No reasoning has been given for the
denial of information and merely quoting the sub-Sections of Section 8(1) without explaining the
reasoning is completely unjustified effectively no information has been provided to the Appellant. The
Appellant’s queries 7, 8, 9 and 13 do not seek information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI
Act.
The PIO of DSIIDC Mr. V.K.Garg is directed to provide the information to the Appellant on points
1,2,3,4,5, 6 & 10.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO of DSIIDC Mr. V.K.Garg is directed to provide the information to the Appellant on points
1,2,3,4,5, 6 & 10 before 30 September 2009.
The then PIO of Commissioner of Industries Mr. J.S.Chaudhary Joint Commissioner Industries
Department is guilty of not transferring the RTI application by 02/03/2009 when he move where the
information the information was and also aware that he did not have the information.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the then PIO of Commissioner of Industries
Mr. J.S.Chaudhary, Joint Commissioner Industries is guilty of not transferring the RTI application
within the time specified under sub-section (3) of Section 6 by not transferring within 05 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 01 October 2009 at 2.30pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information 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 is apparent that the PIO of DSIIDC Mr. Garg 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 01 October 2009 at 2.30pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the
appellant.
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, 2005.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
04 September 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.) (sg)
CC:
Mr. J.S.Chaudhary
Joint Commissioner Industries
the then PIO of Commissioner of Industries
Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Udyog Sadan,
Plot 419, FIE Pratapganj,
Delhi-110092