CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opp. Ber Sarai Market, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001686/4679
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001686
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. R.K. Kaushik
B-33, Palika Kunj
Lodi Colony, New Delhi 110003
Respondent : Mr. D. Verma
Dy. Secretary (Vigilance) & PIO
Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD
Level – 4, C Wing, Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi 110002
RTI application filed on : 05/03/2009
PIO replied : 08/04/2009
First appeal filed on : 16/04/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 12/05/2009
Second Appeal received on : 11/07/2009
Information sought Reply of PIO
1. Day to day progress report with present 1 to 3. The letter dated 30/10/2008 and
status including noting portion, DO letter 29/12/2008 received in this Directorate are
sent in this regard and their replies received under examination.
thereon.
2. Please intimate names, designations with
office addresses of the official who have
been assigned to investigate or submit
findings.
3. Please provide the names and
designations of the officials who were
supposed to take action on above cited
complaints and not done so in true sprit.
4. If these officials fail to reply, does your 4 to 5 The requisite information is not
good authority plan to punish them? covered under the definition of information
5. If so, under which rule or in what shape u/s 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
and in law much probable time.
6. Kindly furnish name, designation with Complaint can be addressed to Pr.
complete office address of the authority to Secretary (Vig.) at the address mentioned
whom complaint can be made against the below:-
Addl. Secretary (Vig.) please. Directorate of Vigilance, 4th Level, ‘C’
Wing, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Incomplete and misleading information provided by PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
“In view of the above discussion, I find the reply given by the PIO in respect of all the points in
the application as adequate. I therefore, see no merits in the appeal. I am constrained to dismiss
it.”
Grounds for Second Appeal:
For not providing correct information. The PIO should be directed to provide information free of
cost.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Absent
The Commission accepts the decision of the PIO that queries 4 & 5 are not seeking information
as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. As regards queries 1, 2 & 3 the PIO must provide
the names and designations of the officers and the progress report of the letters dated 30/10/2008
and 20/12/2008 sent by the Applicant. The Commission gives a format below which may be
useful to convey the information:
Date on which Name of Officer who Action taken by Date of which
letter received. received information the officer forwarded.
Note: there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the papers.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information as described above will be given to the Appellant before
20 September 2009.
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 cost as per Section 7(6) of
RTI Ac.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
2 September 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
k.j.