In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001759
Date of Hearing : September 26, 2011
Date of Decision : September 26, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Masood Ahmad
C1/50, Yamuna Vihar
Delhi.
Applicant was not present.
Respondent(s)
Directorate of Prosecution
Govt of NCT of Delhi
Tis Hazari Court
Delhi
Represented by : Shri B S Kain Directorate of Prosecution/PIO
Shri Naresh Kumar, UDC
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001759
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application dated 1.3.11 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, Directorate of Prosecution,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi seeking information related to one Mr. S C Sharma, Vigilance Officer of
Directorate of Prosecution against 9 points including the date on which Mr.S C Sharma was
designated as Vigilance Officer, attested copies of all the property returns of movable and
immovable property of Mr.S C Sharma, Vigilance Officer; copies of all the memos issued to Mr.S C
Sharma and copies of complaints received by the Directorate against Mr.S C Sharma etc. The PIO
replied on 29.3.11 providing point wise information and also denying the information which is
personal in nature. He also denied the information against point 7 and 8 as the same is the list of
complaints received in the Vigilance office which is confidential. Not satisfied with this reply the
Applicant filed his first appeal on 26.4.11 stating that the PIO has deliberately withheld the
information against point 1 to 9. With regard to point 2,3 and 4 he contended that the PIO has not
provided the information. As for point 5 he stated that the PIO has transferred the point no.5 to the
Home Department although the information is available with him The Appellate Authority replied on
6.6.11 stating that from the reply of the PIO dated 29.3.11 it is clear that no information has been
declined and also that the Applicant has sought information related to various issues thereby trying
to influence the Vigilance Officer of the Directorate for his vested interest. The Appellant then filed
his second appeal before the Commission.
Decision.
2 . The Commission on reviewing the information sought against each point decided as given below :
Point 1 : Complete information with regard to the appointment of Shri S C Sharma may be
provided.
Point 2 : The Commission holds that the information belongs to 3rd party, and is personal in nature
the disclosure of which has no relation with any public interest or activity. The disclosure of
information is therefore denied .
Points 3 and 4 : The Respondent submitted that no memos have been issued in respect of Shri S C
Sharma’s immovable property. Hence no information need be provided.
Point 5 : The Respondent stated that no complaint has been received by the DOP against Shri
Sharma. This fact may be intimated formally in writing to the Appellant.
Point 6 : It has been noted that the information i.e. copies of the orders sought by the Appellant
have already been provided to him.
Points 7 & 8 The Commission denies the disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI
Act.
Point 9 : The Respondent submitted that the information was provided on 23.4.11.
3. Information to be provided by 25.1011.
4. The Commission disposes off the appeal with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
1. Shri Masood Ahmad
C1/50, Yamuna Vihar
Delhi.
2. The Public Information Officer Directorate of Prosecution Govt of NCT of Delhi Tis Hazari Court Delhi 3. The Appellate Authority Directorate of Prosecution Govt of NCT of Delhi Tis Hazari Court Delhi 4. Officer Incharge, NIC
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 RTI Act, giving
(1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellant Authority, (4) copy
of the Commission’s decision, and (5) 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.