CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003010/10515
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003010
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. S. P. Singh Shishodia
140 Lawyers Chambers
Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi-110054.
Respondent : (1) ADM(South) & PIO
Govt.of NCT of Delhi
M.B.Road, Saket,
New Delhi.
(2) Mr. V.P. Singh
SDM (Kalkaji) & PIO
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
37, Tugalkabad Institutional Area,
New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 05/06/2010
PIO replied : 03/08/2010
First appeal filed on : 11/08/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 15/09/2010
Second Appeal received on : 25/10/2010
The Appellant has sought information regarding a letter dated 19.7.1999 was, lnter-alla, addressed to the
DC(South) by Shri Rajesh Gupta, Advocate, on behalf of Smt. Dhola:
Sr. Information sought Reply of the PIO
1. Who has received the said letter and what is its diary No. at the The Diary No. is 3220 but as the present
offices the DC(South), LAC/SDM Kaikaji and Tehsildar, diarist was not posted in this office on
Kalkaji? 19/7/1999 hence he dose not know about
the dealing hand who received the said
letter.
2. To whom the said letter was marked for necessary action, As per the diary register, the letter was
provide the name and designation of the said official at the marked to Tehsildar/SDM.
offices the DC (South), LAC/SDM Kalkaji and Tehsildar,
Kalkaji?
3. Final Action taken report on the aforesaid letter including the Point No. 3 pertains to concerned
office notings and proceedings and by whom at the offices the SDM/Tehildar.
DC(South), LAC/SDM Kalkaji and Tehsildar, Kalkaji?
4. The photocopies of the Dispatch-cum Receipt Registers from Photocopy attached.
15.7.1999 to 31.7.1999 maintained at the offices of the
DC(South), LAC/SDM Kalkaji and Tehsildar, Kalkaji;
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
“On perusal of the appeal flied by Sh.S.P.Singh Shishodia, it appears that the reply has been furnished by
the SDM(KJ) & ADM(S) to the Appellant but the Appellant was not satisfied with the reply/information.
Sh.Kaushik informed that the said RTI application does not pertain to the L.A.Branch. In this situation
SDM (KJ) is directed to trace out the old record with sincere efforts and re-examine the reply furnished by
his office and provide the information directly to the Appellant within 10 days on receipt of this order under
intimation to this office.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. S. P. Singh Shishodia;
Respondent (1): Mr. Ashok Kumar, NT/LA on behalf of Mr. E. Rajababu, PIO & ADM/LAC (South);
Respondent (2): Mr. Pratap Singh, UDC on behalf of Mr. V.P. Singh, SDM (Kalkaji) & PIO;
The Respondent Mr. Pratap Singh who has come on behalf of Mr. V.P. Singh, SDM(Kalkaji) states
he has no knowledge about the queries and has come to the Commission not knowing what he suppose to
do. The information apparently should be provided by SDM(Kalkaji) who has sent a representative who
states he does not know why he has come to the Commission. This is complete waste of Government money
and the poorest man in the Country should not be paying for such completely foolish actions on the part of
the officers. The Commission directs PIO/SDM(Kalkaji) to provide the complete information to the
Appellant from the available records. The PIO/SDM(Kalkaji) has stated that a letter marked by Dy.
Commissioner (South) and a copy of the same which was supposedly delivered to SDM(Kalkaji) directly
ion 26/07/1999 is not traceable. The SDM will give specific information whether there is no record of the
receipt of this letter in the invert register.
There is no information which has to be provided by PIO/ADM(South).
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO/SDM(Kalkaji) is directed to provide the complete information based on the
records to the Appellant before 10 January 2011.
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 appears 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. 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 give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1) before 15 January, 2011. He will also send the information sent to the appellant as
per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the
appellant.
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
20 December 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AK)
