In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001638
Date of Hearing : August 23, 2011
Date of Decision : August 23, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Mahatma Mahto
R/o 66, Palika Gram
NDMC Flats
Sarojini Nagar
New Delhi 110 023
The Applicant was present during the hearing
Respondents
New Delhi Municipal Council
Law Department
Palika Kendra
New Delhi
Represented by : Shri M.M.Khan, PIO & Asst. Law Officer
Shri Dharam Pal, AA & L.O
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001638
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.Nil with the PIO(Personnel), NDMC seeking information
against eight points including the following:
i) List of cases in which appeal filed by NDMC with the prior approval of the competent
authority along with details of time taken in filling appeal.
ii) List of cases in which appeal filed by NDMC without approval of the competent authority
along with details of time taken in filling appeal.
Shri M.M.Khan, PIO, Law Department replied on 23.3.11 providing some inormation. He once again
replied on 13.4.11 advising the Applicant to approach the Personnel Department for information
against point 7. The Applicant filed an appeal dt.21.4.11 with the Appellate Authority stating that with
regard to point 7 there is a dispute between both Law and Personnel Departments. He added that no
complete information has been provided even after elapse of considerable amount of time. Shri
Dharam Pal, Appellate Authority replied on 25.5.11 explaining the role of the two Departments (Law
and Personnel). Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.17.6.11
before CIC raising the following issues:
i) NDMC has designated subordinate staff of Deputy Director/Deputy Law Officer and Section
Officer Level as PIO and the Directors as the First Appellate Authority.
ii) The Appellate Authority has neither provided him the opportunity of personal hearing, nor
has directed the concerned PIO of the Personnel department to provide the information sought
against points 5 to 8.
iii) No date has been mentioned in the letters of Law Department as to when the RTI
application has been transferred by them to the Personnel Department.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that he had filed the RTI application only with the
Personnel Department and that no information has been received from them except against point 7
which was provided vide letter dt.31.5.11. He added that when he had gone to the RTI Cell to
submit a copy of the second appeal filed before the CIC, he was informed that the RTI Cell would
receive only RTI applications and that copy of the appeals filed before CIC should be handed over to
the concerned officer directly. The Respondents from the Law Department stated that they had
received the RTI Application from the RTI Cell and the RTI application was transferred to the
Personnel Department by them on 10.3.11 for providing information pertaining to them.
3. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides noted that information against points 5
and 6 are yet to be provided by the Personnel Department (as per the Law Department’s submission)
and accordingly directs the PIO(Personnel) to provide the information to the Appellant by 25.9.11.
4. The Commission also directs the Chairperson, NDMC to issue directions to the RTI Cell to receive
the copies of the second appeals filed before the CIC by the Appellants so that the concerned officers
get sufficient time to respond to them.
5. The undersigned also recommends u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act that the Chairperson, NDMC ensure
that only those officers who are either of the rank of Under Secretary or above this rank are
designated as the CPIO and PIOs. The name and designation of the new CPIOs/PIOs may be
intimated to the Commission by 30.9.11 .
6. The Commission directs both the PIOs of Law Department and Personnel Department to show cause
as to why penalties should not be imposed upon them for not providing information on time and also
for providing incomplete information, seemingly with intentions that are malafide. They are directed
to submit their written responses separately to the Commission by 30.9.11.
7. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Mahatma Mahto
R/o 66, Palika Gram
NDMC Flats
Sarojini Nagar
New Delhi 110 023
2. The Public Information Officer
New Delhi Municipal Council
Law Department
Palika Kendra
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
New Delhi Municipal Council
Law Department
Palika Kendra
New Delhi
4. The Chairperson
New Delhi Municipal Council
Palika Kendra
New Delhi
5. The Public Information Officer
New Delhi Municipal Council
Personnel Department
Palika Kendra
New Delhi
6. Officer in charge, NIC
Note: In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving
(1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of the Commission’s decision, and (3) any other documents which he/she
considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what
information has not been provided.