CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002533/5653
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002533
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jain
30, Chawari Bazar,
Delhi - 110006
Respondent : Mr. Dinesh Pandey
Public Information Officer & AC
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
O/o of the Registrar of Societies,
Plot no. 419, Patparganj Industrial Area,
Delhi – 110092
RTI application filed on : 18/05/2009 & 03/06/2009
PIO replied : 19/06/2009
First appeal filed on : 08/07/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 04/08/2009
Second Appeal received on : 06/10/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 15/10/2009
Hearing Held on : 23/11/2009
The Appellant had sought information regarding election of “Aggarwal Digambar Jain
Panchayat (Reg.)” on 24 May 2009:
RTI Dated 18/05/2009:
Sl. Information Sought
1. It is requested to kindly stop this election by using your powers and give answer to my
representation.
2. If because of delaying tactics of Government election dates crossed, kindly stop the
election by declaring it illegal.
RTI Dated 03/06/2009:
Sl. Information Sought
3. Why my information was intentionally delayed?
4. Where is my second postal order no. 64E 531905 dated 20.5.2009 which I had sent
through Speed Post.
5. Who is responsible for the loss of my money, time and mental stress?
6. Whether any official enquiry be recommended against the officers?
7. Whether 30 days be counted from 15-05-2009?
(the filing date of first RTI Application)
First Appeal:
Irrelevant Information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA ordered that, “…….application which was received in the O/o SPIO/Registrar Firms &
Societies on 19.5.09 and the information has been furnished on 19.6.09. The information asked
at point no. 1 & 2 is correct. Only the information asked at point no. 3 & 7 are not correct. The
Appellant is asking reasons for delay in his application, but the SPIO has replied that there is no
delay in the application, hence the correct information be furnished and also point no. 7 of the
application, hence the correct information be furnished and also point no. 7 of the original
application dated 18.5.9 should be considered. It is, therefore, the required information for the
points no. 3 & 7 should be furnished within a period of 7 days.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Appellant requested in his second appeal:
a) Election of 24.5.2009 should be declared as illegal and report of the officer who
arranged election because the election was against the rules.
b) Action under Section 20(2) be initiated against corrupt officers of the Society.
c) Action against the officers be recommended as per Section 20(1) for not giving
proper reply.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jain;
Respondent : Mr. Dinesh Pandey, Public Information Officer & AC;
The Appellant has not sought information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed
The Appellant had not sought information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
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
23 November 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)