CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000257/7176
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000257
Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Kumar
R/o F-185, New Seema Puri,
Delhi-110095.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Department of Social Welfare
O/o Distt. Social Welfare Officer (North-
East), Sanskar Ashram Complex, Dilshad
Garden, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 19/02/2009
PIO replied : 18/03/2009
First Appeal filed on : 19/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 03/07/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 03/02/2010
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 17/02/2010
Hearing Held on : 17/03/2010
Information sought:
Information for the women who had been given widow pension in the Seema Puri Constituency
from 01/01/2005 to 31/01/2009. The list of beneficiaries should contain the following
information:
Sr. Name of Address Date Date of Sanctioned Date of Signature
No. Applicant of of Sanction Money disbursement of
Applicant Apply recipient
Reply of PIO:
"With reference to the Appellant's RTI application dated 19/02/2009, which received in the
office of the undersigned on 07/03/2009. The following information is submitted to the
Appellant:
1. The inception of the widow pension scheme is April 2007.
2. The widow pension since April 2007 to 31/01/2009 had been provided to 962
beneficiaries of Seemapuri constituency.
3. The list of beneficiary will be supplied, after you would deposit the money in post
office in RTI account @ Rs. 2/-Rs. Per page. This is for your information"
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
"The hearing in the matter was scheduled to be held in the chamber of FAA on 08/06/2009, but
the Appellant did not turned up. The Appellant was given another opportunity and the appeal
case was fixed for 24/06/2009 at 4.45 P.M. The case was called for several times, but neither the
Appellant nor his representative appears or any intimation received in this regard. It seems that
the Appellant is not interested in pursuing the present appeal case. As such, the appeal stands
dismissed in default."
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Appellant claims that vague and incomplete information received from the PIO.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Ritu Mehra on behalf of Mr. Rajiv Kumar;
Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant had sought information by his RTI application on 19/02/2010 by speed
post. The PIO has replied on 18/03/2009 that additional fees of Rs.2/- per page must be deposited
for information. However, the appellant was not informed how many pages would constitute the
information and how much money was to be paid. The Appellant states that he went to the PIO’s
office on 23/04/2009 and tried to enquire about this but no information was provided to him
about how much money was to be paid but he was told about this and was only told to bring the
IPO. The First Appellate Authority has given an order on 03/07/2009 but appears to have done it
mechanically and dismissed the case mere because the appellant did not come for the hearing.
The First Appellate Authority should have applied his mind and looked at the papers submitted
by the Appellant. The expectation of the FAA is that Appellant must come for the hearing is
without any bases in the law.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide complete information to the appellant free of cost before
05 April 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
17 March 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AK)