CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002461/9826
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002461
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Bhardwaj
Satguru-6666, RZ-C-52, Gopal Nagar,
Behidn Railmaster Factory, Dhansa Road,
Najafgarh, New Delhi – 110043.
Respondent : Mr. Raj Pal Singh
Public Information Officer & SDM(Vasant Vihar)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
O/o the SDM (Vasant Vihar)
DC (South West) Office Complex,
Old Terminal Tax Building, Kapeshera,
New Delhi – 110037.
RTI application filed on : 03/05/2010 PIO replied : Not replied First appeal filed on : 12/06/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 28/06/2010 Second Appeal received on : 04/09/2010 Notice of Hearing sent on : 21/09/2010 Hearing held on : 19/10/2010 Information Sought:
1) Certified copy of surviving certificate applied by Mr. Narendra Kumar Sharma R/o L-136, Sarojini
Nagar, New Delhi.
2) The copy of postal receipt number 3691 dated 16/09/2009 along with name of post office on which
such registered letter had been booked.
Reply of the PIO:
Not replied.
First Appeal:
Non receipt of information from the PIO within the stipulated time.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA directed the PIO to provide the information to the Appellant within 5 working days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the order of the FAA by the PIO. No information provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Bhardwaj;
Respondent : Mr. B. L. Meena, Naib Tehsildar on behalf of Mr. Raj Pal Singh, PIO Public Information
Officer & SDM(Vasant Vihar);
The respondent claims that he had sent the information to the appellant on 23/02/2010 and after
the order of the FAA on 05/07/2010. The appellant states that he has not received this information. This
information also has the following deficiencies:
1- The respondent must state that it is not possible to give certified copy of the surviving
certificate since no copy is kept by the department.
2- A photocopy of the postal receipt no. 3691 would be sent to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information has directed above to the appellant
before 30 October 2010.
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 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 08 December 2010 at 12.00pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1). He will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision
and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.
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
19 October 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)