CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002408/9715
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002408
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. S S Dahiya
A-7/95, Sec-17,
Rohini, Delhi - 110089.
Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar
Public Information Officer & SDM (Saraswati Vihar)
Sub-Division Magistrate
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
O/o the SDM (Saraswati Vihar),
Kanjhawala, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 26/04/2010 PIO replied : 26/07/2010 First appeal filed on : 25/06/2010 First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered Second Appeal received on : 30/08/2010 Notice of Hearing sent on : 21/09/2010 Hearing held on : 08/10/2010 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO 1. Whether the department has the knowledge about the 210 centers Yes.
being conducted in collaboration with Govt of NCT of Delhi and
Department of Information and Technology under the Jeevan
Project.
2. If yes, then whether it has the knowledge about different facilities There was a branch of Jeevan in the O/o
being given to the citizens. SDM (SV) and all applications received
were stored in hard copy format.
3. Whether the information given vide letter SDM/SV/REI/465 dated The information related to letter dated
19/04/2010 was true or false along with reason and name and officer 19/04/2010 was correct as the Appellant’s
responsible for the same. letter dated 04/11/2009 was submitted and
4. Whether the application no. 173170C0810091404 dated 08/10/2009 later it was rejected on 15/01/2010 saying
had been received or not. that he was a resident of Haryana.
5. If received then reason for not issuing the OBC certificate even after
delay of 6 months.
6. If not received not then name of the officer who had visited the
Appellant’s house on 02/01/2010 at 5.15 pm. and had asked some
queries.
7. If the said application did not receive in the office then how did a The information was not available on
call was received on appellant’s number and an assurance was given record.
to issue the OBC certificate.
8. Whether it was true ot not that the SDM called up the Appellant and
asked to give photo so that an OBC certificate could be issued.
9. The date by which Mr. Pravesh Dahiya would be issued the OBC As given in query no.4.
certificate.
10. If not issued the OBC then bear the expense incurred on appeal
before CIC.
First Appeal:
Incomplete information received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
Not ordered.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete information received from the PIO and no action taken by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. S S Dahiya;
Respondent : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, UDC on behalf of Mr. Ajay Kumar, Public Information Officer &
SDM (Saraswari Vihar)
The information appears to have been provided to the appellant. The RTI application had been
filed on 26/04/2010 and the information should have been provided to the appellant before 26/05/2010.
Instead the information was provided to the appellant on 26/07/2010.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information appears to have been provided.
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 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.
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 03 December 2010 at 10.30am
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1). He will also bring 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.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.
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
08 October 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)