CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000166/11693
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000166
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. S. C. Sharma,
Advocate, Supreme Court,
Chamber No. 976, Patiala House Court,
New Delhi- 110001
Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Mittal,
PIO & OSD to Lt. Governor,
Lt. Governor's Secretariat,
Raj Niwas, Delhi- 110054
RTI application filed on : 09/11/2010
PIO replied on : 25/11/2010
First Appeal filed on : 08/12/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 04/01/2011
Second Appeal received on : 14/01/2011
Information Sought:
Whether administrative approval and financial sanction for computerization in the offices of the
Financial Commissioner, PGC, Delhi Cooperative Tribunal and RCS has been given, and if not, the
officers responsible for giving the sanctions and whether any proposals seeking funds for
computerization have been received from these offices and what is the status of these proposals.
Note: By letter dated 16/11/2010, the PIO & OSD to Lt. Governor transferred the RTI application to
the PIO, O/o Financial Commissioner, GNCTD.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
The PIO & Superintendent, O/o Financial Commissioner, GNCTD replied that the website for the
Court of the Financial Commissioner was launched on 27/09/2010 but the same was not updated/
working properly for which letter was written to General Administration Department, GNCTD, the
department providing logistic support to the Court of the Financial Commissioner, for suitable
remedial action. The website address is www.fc.delhigovt.nic.in.
Note: By letter dated 26/11/2010, the Appellant informed the PIO & OSD to Lt. Governor that he had
received information only from the office of Financial Commissioner and that the PIO should have
also transferred the RTI application to the offices of PGC, RCS and Delhi Cooperative Tribunal.
Thereafter, by letter dated 08/12/2010, the PIO & OSD to Lt. Governor informed the Appellant as
follows:
• As per the Guidelines issued by DOPT vide O. M. No. 10/2/2008- IR dated 12/06/2008 (the
“Guidelines”), a RTI application can be transferred to one other public authority only. Therefore,
the RTI application of the Appellant was transferred to the PIO. O/o Financial Commissioner for
providing the requisite information;
• There was no provision in the RTI Act wherein a public authority to who a RTI application is
submitted would collect the information from another public authority and provide the same to an
applicant.
Grounds for First Appeal (Filed with FAA, O/o Lt. Governor):
Information pertaining to only the office of Financial Commissioner was received. However,
information pertaining to the following offices under the administrative control of Lt. Governor was
not received:
1. Office of Delhi Cooperative Tribunal;
2. Office of RCS; and
3. Office of Public Grievances Commission.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA observed that the RTI application was transferred to the PIO, O/o Financial Commissioner
for providing him the requisite information, which pertained to the latter. The Appellant was further
informed vide letter dated 08/12/2010 that the concerned department can only provide the requisite
information and a RTI application cannot be transferred to more than one public authority. The
Appellant may obtain the information by filing separate applications with the other concerned
departments. The FAA rejected the First Appeal of the Appellant.
Ground for Second Appeal:
1. Incomplete information received and dissatisfied with the order of the FAA;
2. PIO & OSD to Lt. Governor wrongly quoted and applied the Guidelines;
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on March 23, 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Satish Kanojia, Superintendent on behalf of Mr. Sanjeev Mittal, PIO & OSD to Lt.
Governor.
The Commission noted that the main point of contention of the Appellant was that the PIO & OSD to
Lt. Governor had transferred the RTI application to only one public authority i.e. the office of the
Financial Commissioner, whereas the RTI application should have also been transferred to the offices
of PGC, RCS and Delhi Cooperative Tribunal. On the other hand, the PIO & OSD to Lt. Governor
argued that as per the Guidelines, the RTI application was required to be transferred to only one public
authority.
The Commission reserved the order during the hearing held on March 23, 2011.
Decision announced on March 26, 2011:
The Commission noted that the information sought by the Appellant in the RTI application appears to
be as follows:
1. Whether any proposal seeking funds for computerisation have been received from the above
mentioned offices; and
2. What is the status of these proposals?
3. Whether administrative approval and financial sanction for computerisation in the offices of
the Financial Commissioner, PGC, RCS and Delhi Cooperative Tribunal has been given;
4. If not, then names of the officers who are responsible for giving the sanctions;
The Appellant has sought information regarding receipt of proposals seeking funds for
computerization, their status and administrative approval/ financial sanction for computerization in
certain offices under GNCTD. There is likely to be an authority/ department in GNCTD which would
receive such proposals for computerization and accord sanctions. Such an authority/ department would
receive proposals from these offices seeking funds for computerization and consequently, would be in
a position to ascertain the status of such proposals.
Therefore, it appears that the PIO & OSD to Lt. Governor may have identified the office of the
Financial Commissioner as the custodian of the information sought and transferred the RTI application
to the latter under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Where the office of the Financial Commissioner is the
custodian of the information sought, it should provide specific, point- wise information on the queries
framed above. However, if the office of the Financial Commissioner is not the custodian of the
information sought, then the PIO, O/o Financial Commissioner must identify the custodian of
information and transfer the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the public authority
concerned.
Further, the PIO & OSD to Lt. Governor has relied on the Guidelines and argued that the RTI
application was required to be transferred to only one public authority. On perusal of the Guidelines,
the Commission observed that they state inter alia that if a part of the RTI application pertains to one
public authority and the remaining pertains to multiple public authorities, then the PIO of the first
public authority should provide the information available with him and advise the applicant to file
separate RTI applications with the other relevant public authorities. In the instant case, the PIO & OSD
to Lt. Governor has not advised the Appellant to file separate RTI applications with the other
departments i.e. offices of PGC, RCS and Delhi Cooperative Tribunal. In other words, the PIO & OSD
to Lt. Governor appears to have placed reliance on a certain part of the Guidelines to justify the
transfer of the RTI application to only one public authority i.e. the office of the Financial
Commissioner, but at the same time, has failed to adhere to another requirement of the Guidelines viz.
advising the Appellant to file separate RTI applications with the offices of PGC, RCS and Delhi
Cooperative Tribunal. Besides the Appellant has sought information about receipt of proposals and
their status, which could not have been with the departments seeking the sanction. Therefore, the reply
of the PIO & OSD to Lt. Governor dated 08/12/2010 appears to be an afterthought in response to the
Appellant’s letter dated 26/11/2010.
In light of the reasons enumerated above, the transfer of the RTI application by the PIO & OSD to Lt.
Governor to only the office of the Financial Commissioner appears to be in order, if the Financial
Commissioner is the custodian of information.
In view of the aforesaid, the Commission hereby directs the PIO & Superintendent, O/o
Financial Commissioner to provide specific, point- wise information on the queries framed
above to the Appellant before April 25, 2011, where the O/o Financial Commissioner is the
custodian of the information sought.
However, if the O/o Financial Commissioner is not the custodian of the information sought, then
the PIO & Superintendent shall identify the custodian of information and transfer the RTI
application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act before April 15, 2011 to the public authority
concerned.
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
March 26, 2011
CC: PIO & Superintendent,
Court of the Financial Commissioner: Delhi,
5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi- 110054
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AP)