CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001982/9203
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001982
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr.Sadhu Ram
AE-124,
Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi - 110088.
Respondent : Mr. D. P. Rana
Public Information Officer & SDM(HQ)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Revenue Department
5, Sham Nath Marg, New Delhi-110036
RTI application filed on : 27/08/2009
PIO replied : 05/10/2009
First appeal filed on : 24/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 24/11/2009
Second Appeal received on : 24/12/2009
The Appellant provided a brief detail in point nos. 1&2 thereby seeking no information in those points.
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
3. (i) Has my letter dated 26.07.2007, raising (i) The letter dated 26.07.2007 has not
aforementioned three issues, been processed at all? been processed as per record.
(ii) If so, with what results? (ii) N/A in view of Para 1
(iii) An authenticated and certified copy of the orders (iii) N/A in view of answer no.1
issued or the outcome of the case in any other form
may please be provided/ intimated by me.
4. In case the points made in the letter have been N/A in view of Answer no. 1
rejected:-
(i) Ground thereof?
(ii) When the final decision for such rejection
was taken and at which level was it taken?
(iii) Why it was not conveyed to the Appellant
earlier?
5. In case the letter has not been fortunate enough to have The letter of the applicant is very much
got official attention, then please provide the available on record but it was not
information relating to the same, but to be considered for processing as pursuant
accompanied with the following information to issue of circular dated 27.07.2005.
(i) What have been the reasons thereof? Objections and references on the same
(ii) The names and designation of the issue were received where many
officials/officers who were otherwise duty clarifications were sought, and the issue
bound to handle/deal with it, right from the has been consequently held up for the
initiating level to the final decision taking same till date.
Page 1 of 3
level.
(iii) On which date did the letter reach the (iii) as per record the said letter reached
official and who was concerned with the CCS Branch on 01.08.2007
starting its process?
(iv) After the date the letter reached the (iv) In view of answer to S.No. it is not
initiating official, how the matter or case applicable.
progressed from then onwards over a period
of more than 2years till now i.e. the dates of
its reaching the very next level/stage upto
its final decision taking level.
(v) If the analysis as per item (iv) above reveals (v) As above.
that the case inordinately delayed/struck up
at a particular stage/level, any special
justification thereof?
(vi) At which level is the case resting and since (vi) As above.
when, specify the reasons for the same.
(vii) Will the office of the Hon’ble Divisional (vii) As above.
Commissioner make proper investigation
into the delay in this matter and take action
against those who are found to be
responsible for dereliction of duty?
6. In case the letter has remained unattended so far, will In view of S.No. (iii), it is not
necessary action be taken now? applicable.
7. When shall the results of the action taken be expected? Would depend on the outcome of the
above.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA in his order stated “perusal of the information furnished by the PIO reveals that correct
information has been furnished in replies to the Queries No. 1, 2, 3 & 4. As regards to Query No.5, is
concerned, the reasons for non consideration of the letter dated 26.07.2007 of the Appellant has also been
clearly furnished. In view of the fact of that the letter dated 26/07/2007 has not been processed as clearly
intimated by PIO. The question of furnishing the names of officials who were supposed to deal with the
letter does not arise. Since the issue has been held up from the time objection and reference were received
pursuant to the circular dated 27.07.05 (i.e. a period of almost 4 years) , no public purpose would be
served within the reply to query no. 5(ii) calling for name and designation of officers/officials who were
duty bound to deal with the letter from the appellant. In short the matter which is the subject of the
appellant’s letter dated 26/07/2007 is still pending with the Govt. of Delhi”.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and unfair disposal of the matter by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sadhu Ram;
Respondent: Mr. D. P. Rana, Public Information Officer & SDM(HQ);
The appellant has sent a letter in 2007 raising the issue of certain anomalies in the issue of SC/ST
certificate. The PIO admits that this matter is being considered by the Government and states that
Department of SC/ST Welfare has stated that the issue of ratification of a circular issued by GNCTD on
27/07/2005 is under the consideration of the Ministry. The appellant has shown that the matter of making
Page 2 of 3
it easy for SC/ST members who have migrated to Delhi has been actually decided by the Legislative
Assembly and a recommendation of a Legislative Committee, the Condera Committee had been accepted
by Government vide cabinet decision no. 963 dated 07/05/2005. The Commission is surprised that for five
years after this the Government continues to state that it is considering the matter. This is a waster of
public money and resources if considerations of matter take years. The appellant who is guided by public
interest is agitated about the display of non-functioning of the Government. However, the Commission
does not have any power in these matters and can only hope that the Government takes appropriate action.
The PIO is however directed to inform the appellant of the latest communication received by him with
respect to the action/inaction taken by the Government.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The PIO is directed to inform the appellant of the latest communication received by
him with respect to the action/inaction taken by the Government. The PIO is directed to
give this information to the appellant before 20 September 2010.
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
03 September 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (VN)
Page 3 of 3