CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000755/12534
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000755
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Smt. Vidyu Devi
W/o Ramesh Kumar
House No. 68, Sector 18A, Faridabad
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure
Development Corp. Ltd
419, Udyog Sadan, Pataparganj,
Industrial Area, Delhi 110092.
RTI application filed on : 26/11/2010
PIO replied on : 20/12/2010
First Appeal filed on : 19/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order of : N.A.
Second Appeal received on : 17/03/2011
Information Sought:
The appellant sought a list of letters submitted before the D.S.I.I.D.C. in respect of Plot No
1644,Narella regarding the NOC, Sight Possession Offer, NOC, Possession Letter etc. The appellant
asked for copies of these letters.
1- Letter diary no. 1228 dt. 24.08.94
2- Letter dt. 16.9.94
3- Letter dt. 26.12.05
4- Letter dt. 11.2.06
5- Letter diary no. 5415 dt. 20/06/07
6- Letter diary no. 2018 dt. 16/11/09
7- Letter Dt. 22.2.10
8- Letter Dt. 29.3.10
9- Letter diary no. 282 dt. 4/05/2010
10- Letter to GM Dt. 27.7.10
11- Letter to MD Dt. 27.7.10
12- Letter Dt. 27.10.10
PIO`s Reply:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The PIO did not supply complete information and the information that was given was wrong and
misleading.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
N.A.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
1. The information supplied is not satisfactory.
2. The First Appellate Authority did not provide a hearing.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a
perusal of the papers it appears that complete information has not been provided to the Appellant. The
PIO is directed to provide the action taken by the department on each of the letters submitted by the
Appellant in the following format:
Date on which Name and designation of Action taken Date on which forwarded to
Letters The officer receiving it. Next officer/office.
received*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the letter.
Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the appellant
before 10 June 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.
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 17 June 2011 at 2.30pm
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.
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
26 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)