CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /AT/A/2008/01186//SG/0837
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01186/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sudershan Singh Sachdeva,
Flat No. C-202,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Brotherhood Co-op. Group Housing Society,
Plot No. 17, Bodella,
H-Block, Vikas Puri
Delhi -110018.
Respondent 1 : Neeta Sharma,
Asstt.Registrar & PIO, (West Zone)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Office of the Registrar (W) Co-operative Societies.
Parliament Street, Old Court Building.
New Delhi-110001.
RTI application filed on : 04/03/2008 PIO replied : 08/04/2008 First appeal filed on : 18/04/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 13/05/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 05/09/2008
The appellant had asked in their RTI application for copy of letter from the
Registrar Coop. Societies New Delhi.
Detail of required information:-
Copies of letter writer to the President, Brotherhood Co-op. Group Housing
Society (W), Vikaspuri, & to the Dy. Director DDA Vikas Sadan, INA vide reference
No. F.47/510/GH/W/co-op/4107 dated 07/12/1992.
The PIO replied.
With reference to your RTI ID No. 4019 I am to inform that as per the
available records of this office required documents relating to the above RTI are not
available further it is also intimated that as per the noting portion of the file it appears
that no letter was issued to the president. Brotherhood CGHS or Dy. Director, DDA
on 07/12/1992.
You may also inspect records of this office on 28 April in connection with the
required information relating to the above RTI application in zonal records.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
“I have perused the application under RTI and the appeal filed by the appellant
and have also heard him and the representative of the SPIO. I found that the concern
of the SPIO is not unfounded. However, while giving the documents it may be written
that it is a forged letter which is on the records of the RCS office so that SPIO’s
interest are safe guarded.
In the light of above observations the SPIO is directed to provide the
information to the appellant within 7 days from the receipt of these orders.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sudershan Singh Sachdeva
Respondent: Mr. Handubaa representing Ms. Nita Sharma PIO
The respondent has provided the copies of the letters asked for after the first appellate
authority’s order. The respondent states they believe the letters are forged and hence
they have written on the copies that the letters are forged. The appellant has a
complaint that the respondents must not write this, or they should give evidence of
how they have arrived at this conclusion.
If a Public authority has reason to believe that a forged document is on their files,
they certainly are duty bound to state this on a copy that they give.
The appellant contends that the Commission must conduct an enquiry under
Section18 (e) (2). The Commission does not see any need to do this.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
2 January 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
