CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000770/7670
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000770
Appellant : Mr. R. M. Prasad,
Flat No. 22, Prayag Apartments,
B-1, Vasundhara Enclave,
Delhi-110096
Respondent : Mr. M. L. Gupta
Public Information Officer &
Asstt. Registrar (East)
O/o the Registrar Cooperative Societies,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Paliament Street, Old Court Building,
New Delhi-110001
RTI application filed on : 23/10/2009
PIO replied : 13/11/2009
First Appeal filed on : 15/12/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 05/01/2010
Second Appeal Received on : 25/03/2010
Date of Notice of Hearing : 01/04/2010
Hearing held on : 10/05/2010
Information sought:
Appellant sought following information regarding functioning of Neeraj Cooperative Group
Housing's Society at B-1, Vasundhara Enclave Delhi-110096:
1. Whether annual audit of the accounts of the society has been done during the last
three financial years? If yes, provide photocopies of audit accounts-income
expenditure, receipts and payments, balance sheet etc. if not, give reasons and name
of office bearers responsible for getting the audit done.
2. Minutes of the last 3 General Body Meetings and Management Committee Meetings
duly signed and attested by the competent signatory.
3. Names, addresses and contact details of office bearers/ management committee
members who are withdrawing money from the accounts of the society and are
responsible for income-expenditure during last two years.
4. Names, addresses and contact details of office bearers and management committee
members running the affairs of the society presently.
5. Total income received and expenditure incurred under various heads since April,
2009.
PIO's Reply:
"that desired information mentioned at S.No 02 to 05 pertains to society and RTI application can
not sent to society, it being not a public authority. As per record of the society information is not
available in this Zone. Appellant may obtain the information directly from the society .."
Grounds for First Appeal:
Application was not forwarded to Audit Branch in time.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
"As regards Point no. 2, 3 & 5, FAA tends to agree with contention of the SPIO/AR(E) that the
desired information pertains to the Society and is not available with the public authority nor is it
required to be maintained under any Act or law for the time being in force."
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Appellant requested that the information could be collected from the society and provided to
him.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. M. L. Gupta, Public Information Officer & Asstt. Registrar (East);
The PIO shows that information on point-1 has been supplied to the appellant on
10/12/2009. It appears that information had not been provided on query-2, 3 & 4 and there
appears to be no reason why this information could not have been provided. No exemption has
been claimed by the PIO and this is certainly information which RCS must have as per the law.
The PIO states that information relating to query-2, 3 & 4 is not available on their records
since the society has not submitted this. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act clearly states,
“”information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails,
opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers,
samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any
private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being
in force;”
Thus information which can be accessed by the public authority under any other law for the time
being in-force has to be supplied to a RTI applicant. Details sought at query-2, 3 & 4 must be
with the RCS. If RCS does not obtain the information which the law expects it to routinely, the
reason for the existence of the RCS itself becomes suspect. RCS and other public authorities of
this nature are expected to monitor and regulate the working of those registered with them. If
they do not perform this function they are only a drain on the public exchequer. Laws given them
enough powers to enforce their writ to obtain the information which the law expects them to
gather.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information to the appellant before
15 June 2010.
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
10 May 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj