CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai,
New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000578/3281
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000578
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. S.C. Jain,
A-22, DUJ Apartments, B-5,
Sector-14 Extn., Rohini,
New Delhi-110086.
Respondent : Asstt. Registrar & PIO,
Registrar Co-op Societies,
Old Courts Bldg. Parliament Strteet.
New Delhi-110001.
RTI application filed on : 22/01/2009
PIO replied : 06/02/2009
First appeal filed on : 18/02/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 06/03/2009
Second Appeal received on : 25/03/2009
Particular of required information :-
Name of the Secretary of DUJ Co-op. G/H Society Ltd, Rohini-46(H) from
02.02.2005 to 30.09.2007
The PIO replied.
Your RTI applications are being forwarded to society for providing
information to your directly.
However, you may also inspect the file of the society to identify the
information and such identified information will be provided you immediately.
The First Appellate Authority ordered.
“The SPIO/AR(NW) forwarded the application to the Society on
06.02.2009 to provide the information to the appellant. However, this information
can be given on the basis of the Audit Reports of the Society for which the
SPIO/AR(NW) should make efforts and provide it to do the applicant within ten
days positively.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. M.L. Gupta, Assistant Registrar and PIO
The PIO shows that he has given the information to the appellant on 13/05/2009
giving the name of the Secretary.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided to the appellant.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required
information by the PIO Mr. M.L.Gupta within 30 days as required by the law.
The information should have been provided by 22/2/2009, but the information has
been provided on 13/5/2009. Hence the PIO is liable for a penalty of Rs. 250 per
day of delay subject to a maximum of Rs. 25000/-.
From the facts before the Commission it is 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 has
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 has clearly ordered the information to be given.
It appears that the 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.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
12 June 2009 at 5.30pm 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.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15th May, 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)