CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003290/10425
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003290
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mrs. Deepika Kamal,
C-2/1, Acharya Niketan,
Mayur Vihar, Ph-I,
Delhi-110091
Respondent : Public Information Officer,
Office of Chief Electoral Officer,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
Old St. Stephan’s College Building,
Kashmiri Gate,
Delhi-110006
RTI application filed on : 12/08/2010
PIO replied : 07/09/2010
First appeal filed on : 15/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 20/10/2010
Second Appeal received on : 27/11/2010
Information Sought:
The appellant sought information regarding Mr. Bharat Kumar, who was suspended by the letter dated
22/11/09 who is again reappointed. Kindly specify the post of the officer responsible for his reappointment
and also the order for his reappointment. Also provide with the copies of order and note-sheets of the
matter.
Reply of PIO:
There is no right under RTI Act to question about how and why of any decision.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by PIO.
Order of the FAA:
“2. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 13.10.2010 when the appellant alongwith his father, Sh. Ram
Kishan and Sh. B.K. Parchure, Election Officer (Admn.) alongwith Sh. N. Venkataraman, UDC
were present. The appellant contended that she sought information regarding whether Sh. Bharat
Kumar was reinstated in service and if so, kindly provide copy of the reinstatement order alongwith
the copy of note sheet in which the decision to reinstate him was taken. However, the Election
Officer (Admn.) has denied the information on the ground that the applicant cannot ask questions as
“why” and “what” about the decision of the Public Authority. On the other hand, the PlO has stated
that the information provided to the applicant is not wrong.
3. I have carefully gone through the RTI application dated 12.08.2010, the information furnished by
Election Officer (Admn.) vide letter dated 07.09.2010 and the contents of appeal dated 23.09.2010.
Perusal of the RTI application reveal that the appellant has sought information relating to Sh. Bharat
Kumar, Grade-I(DASS)/AERO, which, as per provisions of Section 11(1) of RTI Act relates to
Third party information. However, the Election Officer (RTI)/PIO has not considered the provisions
under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act scrupulously and disposed the application by denying the
information.
5. As ‘per Section 11(1) of Right to Information Act, 2005, where a Central Public Information Officer
or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or
record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a
third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information
Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the
receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request to make a submission in
writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the
third party shall be kept in view white taking a decision about disclosure of information.
6. In view of the facts detailed above, the PlO is directed to dispose the RTI application of the appellant
as per provisions of RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of this order.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No satisfactory information provided by PIO even after FAA’s order. Information asked for is not personal
information but public information as the dismissal of the above-mentioned person occurred due to
appellant.
Decision:
The First Appellate Authority(FAA) has given an appropriate direction in so far as he has
ruled that no exemption applies to the information sought by the Appellant. However, the
FAA has erred in concluding that an order revoking suspension by any officer constitutes
third party information. From the submissions of the Appellant it appears that after the order
of the FAA no information has been provided to the Appellant.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant before
05 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable
doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered
the information to be given. 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 10 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
13 December 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PBR)