CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002386/5512
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002386
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rajni Kant Swami
D-122, Shaym Park, Extn.
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (UP)
Respondent : Mr. M.G.Prabhakaran
Public Information Officer & Joint Secretary
Government of NCT of Delhi.
Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board,
9, Institutional Area, Pankha Road,
Janakpuri, New Delhi- 110058.
RTI application filed on : 28/03/2009
PIO replied : 01/05/2009
First appeal filed on : 26/05/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 22/06/2009
Second Appeal received on : 19/09/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 12/10/2009
Hearing Held on : 13/11/2009
Sl. Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. A copy of the decision of the board for affecting A copy is enclosed.
scheme of DGEHS for the employees of
DAMB/APMCs.
2. Copy of amendments in regulations dated He may inspect the relevant file and
7/2/2005 providing for "DGEHS" for the records and collect the requisite
employees of DAMB/APMES. information
3. Copy of the order/decision where it was decided He may inspect the relevant file and
that circular no. 39019/63/05/DAMB/Acett/-5320- records.
5330 dated 16/05/2008 will have a retrospective
effect.
4. A copy of the decision where it was specifically A copy of the decision of competent
mentioned that approval shall be the effect from authority that the effective date will be
the date of approval and not from the date form the date of sanction of VC is enclosed.
which it was requested.
5. A copy of the decision where it was mentioned He may inspect the relevant file and
that approval of competent authority is required. records.
6. All the file notings of file no. A38011/3196 Vide this office letter no.
AAMB/EStt/PG/RTI. 15(587)/568/08/DAMB/Mktg./RTI/ID-
94/1059 dated 17/2/09 the applicant
was given copies of the following
notings on his request dated 16.2.09.
“17/N to 24/N, 29/N to 31/N and 40/N
to 45/N” Copies of remaining are
enclosed.
7. A copy of note sheet in which decision was taken He may inspect the records and collect
that requirement of prior approval shall have the information.
effective from retrospective date and also copy of
the note sheet which mention the dated from
which such approval was required.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response from PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The First Appellate Authority in his order for queries 1 & 4 agrees that information provided is
satisfactory. However for queries 2, 3, 5 & 6 directed the PIO to give another date of inspection
and asked the Appellant to collect the photocopies from the office after inspection.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response from PIO & FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr.Rajni Kant Swami;
Respondent: Mr. M.G.Prabhakaran, Public Information Officer & Joint Secretary;
The Appellant has a grievance that medical treatment has not been sanctioned to him in
outside hospitals. He admits that he has also inspected the files and he believes he does not see
any justification for a particular circular. The Appellant has been asked to identify what records
he has been seeking. It appears that he wants certain clarifications which are not on record. He
believes the department is not acting as per the rules as he understands. This is not the scope of
the Right to Information.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information has been supplied.
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
13 November 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RM)