In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/000970
Date of Hearing : June 8, 2011
Date of Decision : June 8, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri L.K.Garg
Advocate
Chamber No.303
Block III
Delhi High Court
New Delhi 110 003
The Applicant was present during the hearing
Respondents
Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital
O/o the CMO I/C Purchase
Baba Kharak Singh Marg
New Delhi
Represented by : Shri P.C.Pratihari, Nodal Officer
Shri N. Dutta, Dealing Assistant
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/000970
Adjunct to CIC Order dt.5.8.10 in the captioned case
Background
1. The decision in the above case is reproduced below:
6. From the perusal of the files produced by the Respondent and submissions of
the Respondent during the hearing, it transpires that information sought by the Appellant
is not available on the records with the Respondent Public Authority. However, the
Appellant apprehends that the said documents as he had sought did exist on the file and
has been subsequently removed owing to reasons best known to the custodian of
information viz. the Respondent. The Commission is of the considered opinion that the
information as sought by the Appellant ought to have been on record available with the
Respondent Public Authority. The Commission observes from the facts of the case, that
the fact that all the documents relating to such an important transaction are missing is in
itself a deviation from the norms and not expected of a responsible Public office.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the existing anomaly cannot
be cured, therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent Public Authority to provide
an Affidavit affirming the reasons for non availability of such information.
7. It has further been specifically submitted by the Respondent that the information
with respect to the notings of Dr. Baruah are not available on the file/s produced before
the Commission nor are there any other files in this regard. The Appellant at this juncture
produced a document claiming that the same was the noting behind the particular letter
dated 15.05.2008, information regarding which had been sought by the Appellant. The
Respondent however denied the existence of any such document in their file, questioning
the origin as well as authenticity of the said document produced by the Appellant. In the
peculiar facts of the case wherein the Appellant claims that he has certain documents
from the Respondents’ file which the Respondent denies as a part of their records, it is
imperative that file notings as exists in the concerned file be provided to the Appellant.
Therefore, it is the considered opinion of the Commission that one copy of all relevant file
noting/s as exist with the Respondent alongwith the approval letter dated 16.06.2008
indicating the Specifications by the Committee signed by Dr. Baruah, be provided to the
Appellant. It is noted that the minutes of the meeting indicating the decision of the
Committee has already been provided to the Appellant.
2. The Commission received a petition dt.10.12.10 complaining about the noncompliance of the CIC
Order. The Commission vide its letter dt.1.4.11 directed the PIO to submit a compliance report in
respect of the Commission’s directives by 21.4.11. The Commission also directed the PIO to provide
an explanation for any delay in complying with the order. On not receiving any response from the
PIO, the Commission decided to schedule a hearing for 8.6.11 and accordingly hearing notices were
issued to the parties concerned.
Decision
3. During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that information is readily available and that the delay
was due to misunderstanding of the CIC Order. The Appellant’s representative present during the
hearing refused to take the information and also refuted the submission of the Respondents by
stating that the Respondents had not indicated clearly why the CIC order has not been complied
with and why information was not provided within the stipulated period.
4. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides directs the PIO to allow the RTI
Applicant (Dr.U.C.Garg) to inspect the files on a mutually convenient date and time and to provide
him with attested copies of documents sought free of cost. The entire exercise to be over by 8.7.11.
The PIO is also directed to show cause for noncompliance of the CIC order dt.5.8.10. He is directed
to submit his written response with a copy to the Appellant so as to reach the Commission by
15.7.11.
5. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri L.K.Garg
Advocate
Chamber No.303
Block III
Delhi High Court
New Delhi 110 003
2. The Public Information Officer
Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital
O/o the CMO I/C Purchase
Baba Kharak Singh Marg
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital
Baba Kharak Singh Marg
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC