CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000029/6815Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000029
SHOWCAUSE HEARING:
Appellant : Mr. Ramchand Balani
M8/D7, MIG Flats,
Jhulelal Apartments,
Pitampura, Delhi
Respondent : Mr. Ved Prakash
Public Information Officer &
Assistant Registrar
Registrar Cooperative Societies
Parliament Street, New Delhi
w
RTI application filed on : 01/10/2009
PIO replied : 30/10/2009
First Appeal filed on : 16/11/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 02/12/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 31/12/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 12/01/2010
Hearing Held on : 12/02/2010
Information sought PIO's Reply
1. True copy of approval/acceptance of the The audit report has been accepted by the
audit report by the office of RCS. Audit Branch of this Department.
2. Whether the list of members annexed to the Question & queries does not cover under
audit report for the year 2007-08 has been RTI Act. However, the audit report has
accepted as the correct list of membership of been accepted by the Audit Branch and
the society? If not, true copy of the letter no letter has been issued to the society
written by AR (NW) to the society pointing from this Zone.
out the irregularities in the list and the details
of and other action taken.
3. Whether the list of members as on 31/.3/2009 Question & queries does not cover under
submitted by the society, where the names of RTI Act. However, the society has not
nominees of over 550 members have not mentioned the name of the nominee in
been recorded, has been accepted by the the list.
AR(NW) as the correct list of members of
the society as required to be submitted under
rule 33 of the DCS Rules, 2007?
4. Copies of the soft copy of the list of Copy of the audit report can be taken
members as on 31/08/2008 & 31/03/2009 form the RTI Branch after deposited the
submitted by the society under Rule 33 of the requisite fees. (hard copy)
DCS Rules, 2007.
5. Whether the enrolment of 55 new members Question & queries does not cover under
Page 1 of 3
during 2007-08 has been found to be in RTI Act.
accordance with the provisions of DCS Act
& rules and if not, then the details of action
taken in the matter by AR (NW).
6. The likely date when the names of 717 Future action is not cover under RTI Act.
members of the above society as per the list
as on 31/03/2009 will be published on the
web-site of the RCS.
7. Whether the membership of 600 members of Question & queries does not cover under
the above society, whose names are presently RTI Act.
displayed on the web-site of RCS, has been
approved by the office of RCS?
8. Whether the society has submitted the Question & queries does not cover under
required information for verification of RTI Act.
membership for the purpose of regularization
of allotment of flats made by it on its own
which has been pending for nearly two
decades.
9. The details of action taken by the present AR Future action is not cover under RTI Act.
(NW) since the date of assuming his
appointment till date to obtain the required
information for verification of membership
for regularization of allotment of flats. If no
action has been taken, the likely time frame
within which the AR (NW)/ office RCS will
take action in the matter.
10. With reference to sub-Para 2(e) above, true This information pertains to the society's
copy of the resolution of the managing record and the information is not pertain
committee submitted by the society in to this office.
compliance of Rule 25 (4) of the DCS Rules,
2007 for enrolment of Shri Sukhdev Ambani
(membership No. 2494) and the date of
receipt of same and the diary number as per
the mail receipt register of AR(NW).
Grounds for First Appeal:
Appellant sought information regarding Para 2 to 10.
The SPIO of deliberately violating the provisions of sec 7(1) of RTI Act, 2005 and denying the
information which ought to be available in his office be forthwith brought to the notice of the RCS.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
"The SPIO is directed to provide the information within 15 days from today."
Grounds for Second Appeal:
No information had been provided by the SPIO after the order of FAA.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ramchand Balani;
Respondent: Mr. Ved Prakash, Public Information Officer & Assistant Registrar;
The PIO was supposed to provide the complete information with 15 days from the FAA’s order on
02/12/2009. The PIO has brought the information only during the hearing which is given to the
Page 2 of 3
appellant before the Commission. Even now some of the information is missing. The PIO is directed to
provide the information to the Appellant within 15 days of the Appellant giving the deficiencies.
Decision dated 12/02/2010:
The appeal was allowed. The PIO will give the information within 15 days after Appellant giving
the deficiencies. The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required
information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the
Commission it was apparent that the 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. He had further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable
doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority had clearly
ordered the information to be given. It appeared that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of
Section 20 (1). A showcause notice was being issued to him, and he was directed to present himself
before the Commission at the above address on 25 March 2010 at 12.00 noon 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.
Facts emerging during show cause hearing dated 25/03/2010:
Appellant: Mr. R. C. Balani
Respondent: Mr. Ved Prakash, Asstt. Registrar (NW) & the PIO, RCS;
Mr. Ved Prakash, Asstt. Registrar (NW) & the PIO, RCS has not given any reasonable cause for non-
compliance of the FAA’s order dated 02/12/2009, in which the FAA had directed the SPIO, Mr. Ved
Prakash to provide the information to the Appellant within 15 days. He has further stated that after the
order of the Commission dated 12/02/2010 the Appellant never informed him personally about the
deficiencies in the reply to the RTI application. However, the Appellant has stated that he had
submitted a letter dated 15/02/2010 describing the deficiencies in the reply in the office of RCS,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi on 15/02/2010 by hand. The Appellant has also provided the copy of the said
letter dated 15/02/2010 bearing the receiving stamp of the RCS office dated 15/02/2010 to the
Commission. The PIO has not provided complete information to the Appellant till date.
The PIO has not yet provided the information to the Appellant and stating that he needs help from the
appellant to be able to provide the information. The PIO’s excuse is sounding like a very lame excuse.
The First Appellate Authority had ordered on 02/12/2009 that the information should be provided with
in 15 days i.e. by 17/12/2009. The FAA also clearly indentified that the PIO was to supply specific
reply as per record available to query- 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 & 9. Yet the PIO gave the reply on this on
11/02/2010. The Appellant was not happy with the information provided and was asked to give a list
of deficiencies which he gave to the Respondent on 15/02/2010. It appears that as far as deficiencies
are concerned there are some issues of interpretation. The Appellant would like to inspect the records.
The Commission directs the PIO to facilitate an inspection of the records by the Appellant on 07 April
2010. The PIO will give photocopies of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 300 pages
duly attested. If any of the records about which information has been given do not exist this will be
stated.
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
25 March 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(k.j.)
Page 3 of 3