CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002978/10712
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002978
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Md. Fakruddin
23, Prashasnik Bibhag, Canteen Bhawan,
Okhla Indl Estate, New Delhi-110020.
Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar
Public Information Officer &
Chief Inspector of Factories
Labour Department
Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD)
O/o of the Chief Inspector Factories
D-Block, 2nd Floor, 5, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi - 110054.
RTI application filed on : 06/04/2010
PIO replied : 03/05/2010
First appeal filed on : 31/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 09/07/2010
Second Appeal received on : 19/10/2010
S. No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
a. Reason for not furnishing the That as per the record, the establishment namely Ms
inspection report of the Factory Garg & Co. Z-55, Okhla Indl. Area, Ph-Il, New Delhi
Inspector in regard to inspection was inspected by Sh. SR. Rana, i.e. on 10/11/09
carried out in the premises of M/s at1230PM and subsequently a reply was issued to the
Garg Electronic Industries on Secretary Engineering and Allied Karamchari Union
10/11/2009. (Regd. No. 4210), 23, Prashasnic Vibhag, Canteen
Bhawan, Okhla mdl. Estate New Delhi-20 vide letter No.
FD-UR/IF/S/958 dated 18/2/10 by post with reference to
the complaint dated 5/11/09 on this matter.
b. On 10/02/2010 the Appellant had That as per the record, a letter dated 10/2/10 had been
sought the status of the application received by this Inspectorate on 15/2/10 with regard to
about the inspection report. complaint dated 5/11/09 against M/s Garg Electronic
Industries., Z-55, Okhla Indl. Area, Ph-Il, New Delhi -20.
c. Reason for not giving the inspection That in view of reply in para (a) above, no further reply is
report to the Appellant. required in the matter under the Right to Information Act,
2005.
d. Name and designation of the officer That as per the record, there was no such instruction to
under whose instruction inspection Sh. SR. Rana (IF).
report was not furnished.
e. Copy of the notice, if any, notice was As per the record, no notice was issued prior to 10/11/09.
issued to the management on or before As per the record notice dated 6/1/10 had been
Page 1 of 3
10/02/2010 and copy of the dispatch dispatched by Regd. Post and the same was received by
register and date. management on 18/1/10.
f. Details of compulsion under which the No such notice was issued, as there is no such
notice for appearance was not served requirement under the provisions of law.
upon the management.
g. Whether any name of the employees As per the record, names of 14-workers were recorded on
was recorded by the inspecting officer the inspection form at the time of inspection of M/s Garg
& Co. Z-55, Okhla Indl. Area, Ph-Il New Delhi. on
10/11/09 at 1230PM.
h. Whether any hesitation for not serving The query does not require any reply under the RTI Act,
the notice to the management 2005.
i. Whether any challan was made by the As per the record, no challan was made by the IF prior to
factory inspector prior to 22.11.2009 22/1 1/rut& thereafter for non-compliances.
for non compliances of the record?
When the inspection was done on
1011.2009 by the factory Inspector
j. Number of employees who were As per the record, names of 14-workers were recorded on
working at the time of inspection in the inspection form at the time of inspection dated
the premises of the management on 10/11/09 of M/s Garg & Co. Z-55, Okhla Indl. Area, Ph-
10/11/2009. Il, New Delhi.
k. Reason for making challan by the That as per the record, a notice bearing No.
factory inspector for violation of FDIURIIFIS/17 dated 6/1/10 was issued to Sh. Janki
factory rules. Prasad (Occupier/Manager), M/s Garg & Co. Z-55,
Okhla Indl. Area, Ph-Il, New Delhi which was responded
by Nikhil (Family relative) of the management stating
that Sh. Janki Prasad (Prop.) of above establishment
expired on 22/11/09 and that that work had been
completely shut down. A copy of the death certificate
had been enclosed in support of the reply. In view of the
reply/ death of the Prop., challan was not required to be
filed under the provisions of law and on the basis of
inspection dated 10/11/09.
l. Reason for not inspecting the above That as per the record, Sh. Ashish Aggarwal, son of
records and or reason that he had only proprietor had met Sh. SR. Rana (IF) at the time of
contacted Mr. Ashish Agarwal under inspection of M/s Garg & Co. on 10/11/09 but he had not
the circumstances and details of produced the requisite records,
circumstances and date on which he
had contacted Mr. Ashish Agarwal.
m. Reason for submitting the report on That as per the record, Sh. S.P. Rana (IF) had submitted
18.2.201Q by the factory inspector his initial report on the file on 17/11/09.
when the inspection was done on
10.11.2009 and details of
circumstances which kept this
inspection report from 10.11,2009 to
18.2.2010.
First Appeal:
Incomplete information provided by the PIO.
Page 2 of 3
Order of the FAA:
The PIO was directed to furnish other requisite information, if any, to the Appellant within15 days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO after the FAA’s order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar, Public Information Officer & Chief Inspector of Factories;
The Respondent states that he has sent the complete information to the Appellant on 21/09/2010
by speed post. The PIO claims that all the information available on the records has been provided to the
Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information appears to have been provided.
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.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
30 December 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (GJ)
Page 3 of 3