CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002194/9483
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002194
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Sahgal
Hony Secretary,
Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited,
Race Course Road, New Delhi-110003.
Respondent : Mr. Anil Kaushal
Public Information Officer & AETO
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
O/o Commissioner of Excise, Entt. & Luxury Tax,
L-Block, Vikas Bhawan,
I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002.
RTI application filed on : 18/02/2010
PIO replied : 19/03/2010
First appeal filed on : 04/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 06/07/2010
Second Appeal received on : 04/08/2010
Information sought:
While negotiating for the payment of Entertainment Tax for the period prior to June 2005, when the
entertainment tax was not collected by the Appellant waiting for the reply for the letter dated 24.02.2002
from the respondent, the then Commissioner Entertainment Tax had offered to settle the old dues on the
condition that the Appellant would not be required to pay interest and fifty per cent of the demand due
was to be waived off by the department Appellant had agreed to that offer reluctantly. The matter was
dealt on the file.
Copies of the noting of the file from page 4/N to page 20/N. which were earlier demanded vide
application dated 26.03.2007.
Reply of PIO:
“In this connection it is submitted that the information sought by the Appellant is ambiguous. As the full
details of the concerned file have not been furnished.”
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
“Sh. Kulwant Singh who appeared on behalf of the Appellant on 01.07.2010 (Ist hearing) was asked to
explain the reasons in detail for not filing the appeal within the “‘prescribed time limit of 30 days as per
Section 19 (1) of the R Act, 2005. It was informed to Shri Kulwant Singh that the said explanation shall
be filed in writing by the Appellant by 11.00 am on 2nd July, 2010.
It is relevant to mentioned that the SPIOIAPIO has given the reply to the RTI application dt. 18.2.2010 as
cited by Appellant vide letter No. 19 (36)/09-1O/ETO/2016 dated 19.3.2010 and the appeal has been filed
Page 1 of 3
vide letter No. DRC/AdmnIETO/040610 dated June 4, 2010. It is apparent that the appeal has been filed
by the Appellant after 76 days from the date of RTI reply given by the APIO.
Shri Kulwant Singh requested that at least 3-4 days time should be given to file the required
explanation/reasons for not filing the appeal in time. The request of SM Kt Singh was considered and
given an opportunity to file the same by. 11.00 am on 6 July. 2010 and the hearing was also fixed on the
same date and time. Appellant is also given an opportunity to explain as to why his appeal should not be
rejected due to non-filing of the appeal within the prescribed time limit as given under the Act.
Sh. Kulwant Singh, Racing Manager appeared today i.e. 06.07.2010 at 11.55 am (2nd hearing) and filed a
letter No. DRC/Admn./ETO/07510 dated July 5, 2010 which is reproduced below: – .
With reference to your letter No. F. No. 29(36)/09-10/ETO/2016 dated 19.3.2010 and subsequent meeting
dated 1st July, 2010 in your good office.
The undersigned would like to inform that our Hony. Secretary, Mr. Rajesh Sehgal is unwell and
hospitalized and our legal consultant has not yet reached Delhi. So, we are not in a position to submit the
reasons as mentioned in the meeting. Hence, you are humbly requested to give us another date for
submitting the reply.”
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Saud Ahmed, Advocate representing Mr. Rajesh Sahgal;
Respondent: Mr. Anil Kaushal, Public Information Officer & AETO;
The RTI application has been filed on 18/02/2010. The PIO replied on 18/03/2010 that he was not
able to understand the information sought and wanted clarification. To this the appellant gave a reply on
27/04/2010 clarifying information sought. The appellant received no reply and hence filed the first appeal
on 04/06/2010. Since he had sent the clarification on 27/04/2010 he expected the information to be
provided by 27/05/2010. Since he did not receive the information he had the first appeal which has been
rejected by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 06/07/2010. The FAA has stated that the appeal is
time barred. This does not appear to be the correct position since the PIO had asked for clarification which
was provided on 27/04/2010. In view of this the time limit should be considered from 27/04/2010.
The respondent claims that the file for which the photocopies required by the appellant was with the
Finance Department in 2006. He states that the Department has not been able to locate the file. If the file
is found the Department will give a photocopy of all the records in the file to the appellant before 05
October 2010. If the file is not found the PIO will file a Police Complaint complaining about the theft/loss
of the file, naming the officers who had last handled the file.
The respondent states that he has been posted on the job since last one month and the person responsible
for not giving the information to the appellant was the earlier PIO Mr. R. K. Utpal, AETO.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The present PIO Mr. Anil Kaushal is directed to either give the attested photocopies
of the records in the file to the appellant before 05 October 2010 or give a copy of the
Police Complaint to the appellant before 30 October 2010. With the copy of the Police
Complaint he will also give a certificate from the Commissioner certifying that the file is
lost.
Page 2 of 3
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the then
PIO Mr. R. K. Utpal, AETO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the then 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 then 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.
PIO Mr. R. K. Utpal, AETO will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
03 November 2010 at 2.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not
be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given 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 cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Ac.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
24 September 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.) (AK)
CC:
To,
The then PIO Mr. R. K. Utpal, AETO though Mr. Anil Kaushal, Public Information Officer
& AETO;
Page 3 of 3