CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110066
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000318/2895
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000318
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Smt. Nirmala Devi,
House No. B-5/87, Sector-7,
Rohini, New Delhi.
Respondent : PIO,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Office of the Dy. Commissioner,
North West, Kanjhawala, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 09/06/2008 PIO : not replied First Appeal filed on : 25/08/2008 First Appellate Authority order : 29/09/2008 Second Appeal filed on : 28/02/2009 Particular of required information :-
1. An application dated 03.12.2007 along with all relevant documents was
submitted in the office of Collector of Stamps (Saraswati Vihar)
Kanjhawala Delhi, for issuing the duplicate refund voucher no.
F.5(430)/Stamps COS(SV) dated 09.10.2006 for Rs. 6750/- action taken till
date on my application may be intimated.
2. What is the criteria fixed (i.e.time limit) for issuing the duplicate voucher.
3. Since, 2006, January, how many applications for issuing of duplicate
stamps voucher for refund of amount were received in your office till date
(year wise details of application, disposal and pending cases with reasons)
may also be intimated.
4. There is any rule to call the applicant to search the old record for issuing the
duplicate voucher.
The PIO replied.
Not replied.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
“On perusal of the record it is found that no reply has been furnished by the
PIO. Let a suitable reply be furnished by the PIO within 15 working days.”
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Smt. Nirmala Devi
Respondent: Absent
The PIO Mr. Ranjeet Singh SDM -Saraswati Vihar, Delhi has provided the
information on queries 1,2 and 4 on 24/11/2008. He has stated that information
requested at query 3 is not readily available. The appellant was asked if he would
like to inspect the records. He states he does not wish to inspect the records.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided to the appellant.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required
information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
It also appears that the First appellate authority’s orders have not been
implemented.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO Mr. Ranjeet Singh
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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 18 May
2009 at 5.30 pm 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.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
23 April 2009
(In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(BK)