CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001959/9154Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001959
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Savitri
R/o E 49/ B 66,
Janta Majdoor Colony,
Delhi - 110053.
Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Shukla
Public Information Officer & SDM (Sahadara)
Government of NCT of Delhi
Office of Additional District Magistrate
(North East)
DC Office Complex, Nand Nagri,
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 09/03/2010
PIO replied : 25/03/2010
First appeal filed on : 08/04/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 18/05/2010
Second Appeal received on : 13/07/2010
S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. The action taken report on the Appellant's application. The letter had been sent for
the necessary action.
2. The names and details of the officers who had inspected the Not related.
appellant’s application along with the relevant dates and the details
of the actions taken by these officers on the application.
3. The date on which the investigation was conducted on the As above.
Appellant’s application. Photocopy of the investigation report and
the application.
4. If no investigation has been conducted so far, then ideally after As above.
how many days was the investigation suppose to be conducted as
required by the law?
5. The name and details of the responsible official due to whom no As above.
investigation has been conducted on this
6. How will these responsible officials be punished by the As above.
department?
7. If there was something lacking in my application, then isn’t it the As above.
responsibility of the department to issue a deficiency memo under
the appellant’s name? If no, then please enclose the photocopy of
the order which says so.
8. If the deficiency memo is suppose to be issued then after how As above.
much time is it supposed to be given to the appellant?
Page 1 of 3
9. If the memo is not issued when it was suppose to be issued then As above.
who is official who is held responsible for this and what
punishment is he given by the department?
10. When will the appellant receive his Son/Daughter’s birth Answer unclear in the reply.
certificate from the department?
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Order not enclosed.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 31 August 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Savitri;
Respondent: Mr. M. L. Jain, Tehsildar on behalf of Mr. Vipin Garg, PIO & SDM (Sahadara);
“The appellant had sought information about action taken on her application for Birth Certificate of
her daughter Ms. Jyoti which she had submitted vide application no. 0940854978 on 22/08/2008. In the
receipt provided to her it was stated that the Birth Certificate would be issued on 12/09/2008.
It is a matter of great concern that a citizen has to file RTI application to obtain a Birth Certificate two years
after the birth of a child. The department is unable to even reply as to what it did to the Birth Certificate
application. The Commission is really concerned since the two officers who have come have no clue about
what happened to the application for the Birth Certificate. The respondent claims that he transferred the RTI
application to the PIO(North East) on 13/08/2010. If the RTI application needed to be transferred it should
have been transferred within 05 days i.e. before 14/03/2010. Instead the officials have been sleeping and
wasting and have transferred the RTI application on 13/08/2010. For this simple matter the appellant has been
unnecessarily harassed and made to file an appeal before the Commission and come for the hearing and she
still does not know what happened to her application to the Birth Certificate.
In view of this the commission decides to award compensation to her for the loss and detriment suffered by
her in filing the second appeal before the Commission. The Commission under its powers under Section 19(8)
(b) directs the Public Authority to send a cheque of Rs.2000/- to the appellant as compensation for the loss and
detriment suffered.
The respondent states that the PIO at the time of filing the RTI application was Mr. Pramod Singh the then
SDM(Sahadara) who was PIO until 31/07/2010.”
Commission’s Decision dated 31 August 2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The Commission directs Mr. M. L. Jain, Tehsildar to give the information as directed above
to the appellant before 20 September 2010.
The PIO Mr. Vipin Garg, PIO & SDM (Sahadara) is directed to ensure that a cheque of
Rs.2000/- as compensation is sent to the appellant before 01 October 2010.
Page 2 of 3
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the then
PIO Mr. Pramod Singh, SDM(Sahadara) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the then 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 then 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.
Mr. Pramod Singh, SDM(Sahadara) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
12 October 2010 at 3.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given 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.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 12 October 2010:
The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. Pramod Singh the then PIO & SDM(Sahadara);
The respondent has explained that he had informed the appellant that the application for Birth
Certificate has been sent to the concerned Police Station for verification. He admits that more detailed reply
has been given after the order of the FAA on 13/08/2010. He submits that the first reply had provided the
information to the appellant. Whereas the Commission feels that this reply was not adequate it appears that if
may not be proper to penalize the PIO for this lapse.
The present PIO/SDM Mr. Rajiv Shukla has sent a letter to the Commission requesting that the Commission
withdraw the order of compensation since the information has been provided to the appellant after the order of
the FAA. The Commission does not accept this plea since the appellant has certainly suffered loss and
detriment which was very easily avoidable and hence directs the PIO Mr. Rajiv Shukla to ensure that the
cheque for compensation as directed by the Commission is sent to the appellant before 05 November 2010.
Adjunct Decision:
The PIO Mr. Rajiv Shukla is directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.2000/- as
compensation is sent to the appellant before 05 November 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
12 October 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)
Page 3 of 3