Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation Hq on 30 December, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal Nos. CIC/NDMCR/A/2018/104823
CIC/NDMCR/C/2018/104825CI
C/NDMCH/A/2018/123731
CIC/NDMCH/C/2018/123949
CIC/NDMCR/C/2018/145485CI
C/NDMCR/A/2018/147516
CIC/NDMCH/C/2019/111164
CIC/NDMCC/A/2019/111498
CIC/NDMCC/C/2019/125212
CIC/NDMCC/A/2019/125207
CIC/NDMCC/A/2019/111167
Shri Akshay Kumar Malhotra ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1.PIO/E. E. -(Bldg.-I)/K.P. Zone, ...प्रनतवादीगण
North Delhi Municipal Corporation /Respondents
2. PIO/Sanitation Superintendent/K.P.Zone,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
3. PIO/E.E-(M-I)/K.P. Zone,NDMC
4. PIO/Asstt. Commissioner/Rohini Zone,
NDMC
5. PIO/Asstt. Commissioner/K.P. Zone,
NDMC
6. PIO/Dy. Assessor & Collector/Rohini,Sector-
17, NDMC
7. PIO/E.E.-(Bldg.-II)/K.P. Zone, North Delhi
Municipal Corporation
8. PIO/Dy. Director-(Bldg.)C&I, Delhi
Development Authority
9. PIO/Dy. Director-(Systems),DDA
10. PIO/Dy. Director-(CL), DDA
Page 1 of 11
11. PIO/Dy. Health Officer-K.P. Zone, NDMC
12. PIO/Asstt. Director-(Plg.)/MP&DC, DDA
13. PIO/Asstt. Commissioner-City-S.P. Zone,
NDMC
Through: Shri Ram Avtar - SS/DEMS; Shri
Sushil Kumar - Asst. Sanitary Inspector; Shri
Sushil Kumar- Asst. Public Health Inspector;
Shri Jitender Kumar - AE(M-I); Sh. K R Meena-
AE(B-I)/KPZ; Shri D D Singh-EE(B-I)/KPZ
Shri S K Goyal - Asst. Engineer; Sh. Parveen
Kumar- JE(B)C&I, DDA; Smt. Jasvinder Kaur-
AD(Plg.); Shri J D Atkan - Nodal Officer, NDMC;
Dr. S B Singh - DHO/KPZ
Date of Hearing : 27.09.2019
Date of Decision : 30.09.2019
Date of Show Cause Hearing : 21.11.2019
Date of Final Decision : 30.12.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
104823 21.09.2017 -- 17.11.2017 16.11.2017
104825 21.09.2017 -- 17.11.2017 16.11.2017
123731 13.12.2017 -- 12.02.2018 --
123949 13.12.2017 -- 12.02.2018 --
145485 12.02.2018 -- 11.04.2018 --
147516 12.02.2018 -- 11.04.2018 --
111164 26.08.2018 05.10.2018 07.01.2019 13.02.2019
&13.12.2018
111498 26.08.2018 05.10.2018 07.01.2019 13.02.2019
125212 07.01.2019 01.02.2019 18.02.2019 --
125207 07.01.2019 01.02.2019 18.02.2019 --
111167 22.08.2018 07.12.2018 07.01.2019 --
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/NDMCR/A/2018/104823 (2) CIC/NDMCR/C/2018/104825 The Appellant/Complainant filed anRTI application dated 21.09.2017 seeking information on twelve points about various complaints filed by him with North MCD for violation of rules and regulations of MCD, by a resident of AC-179-B, Page 2 of 11 Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, who has illegally diverted his kitchen/sewer drain to MCD rain water drain lines. In this respect, he sought following information:-
1. What action can be taken against any violator for violation of MCD Act and various rules for diverting their kitchen/sewer drain to MCD's rain water drain.
2. Inform the status of his complaint and what action has actually been taken on complaint dated 13.09.2017 and 31.08.2017.
3. Provide the copy of the notice/challan as mentioned in closureremarks to the complaint dated 23.07.2017.
4. Inform action further taken after issuance of notice number 555/mcd/office dt. 22.07.2017 in complaint dated 23.07.2017.
5. Give the entire sequence of flow of his complaint along with respective dated of such forwarding/flow of his complaint with different persons within Public Authority.
6. Inform the action taken by each of the official, along with dates of such action, to whom his complaint forwarded. And related matters.
Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated17.11.2017.
An order dated 16.11.2017 from the FAA/SE has also been placed on record whereby the PIO/EE(B)-I/KPZ was directed to provide the information to the appellant within 10 days.
Feeling aggrieved over non-compliance of FAO, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal and a Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submissions have been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 19.09.2019 in respect of file No. CIC/NDMCR/A/2018/104823 andCIC/NDMCR/C/2018/104825 reiterating his averments.
(3)CIC/NDMCH/A/2018/123731 (4) CIC/NDMCH/C/2018/123949 The Appellant/Complainant filed RTI application dated 13.12.2017 seeking information on six points regarding various complaints filed by him with North MCD for violation of MCD guidelines and rules, by a resident of AC-179-B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi who had illegally diverted his kitchen/sewer drain to MCD rain water drain lines. He sought challan number, date of issue challan/noticeetc issued to the offender by the respondent and also sought orders/judgement/remarks with respect to his complaint and other related information.
Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed the First Appeal dated 12.02.2018.
Feeling aggrieved as neither the PIO nor the FAA furnished the information to the Appellant, he approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal and a Complaint.
Page 3 of 11Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
1. A written submission has been received from the PIO/SS/DEMS/KPZ vide letter dated 18.09.2019 in respect of file No. CIC/NDMCH/A/2018/123731 providing point-wise reply based on available records.
2. A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 22.09.2019 in respect of file No. CIC/NDMCH/C/2018/123949.
(5) CIC/NDMCR/C/2018/145485 (6) CIC/NDMCR/A/2018/147516 The Appellant/Complainant filed RTI application dated 12.02.2018 seeking information on six points regarding various complaints filed by him with North MCD for violation of MCD guidelines and rules, by a resident of AC-179-B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi who had illegally diverted his kitchen/sewer drain to MCD rain water drain lines. He sought challan number, date of issue challan/notice and he also sought orders/judgement/remarks. He also sought to inspect the relevant records and other related information.
Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed the First Appeal dated 11.04.2018.
Feeling aggrieved as neither the PIO nor the FAA furnished the information to the Appellant, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal and Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submissions have been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 19.09.2019 in respect of file No. CIC/NDMCR/C/2018/145485 and CIC/NDMCR/A/2018/147516.
Both parties are present during hearing and averments of the parties reveal that the above six appeals have arisen from a common issue, an allegedly illegally diverted kitchen/sewer drain to MCD rain water drain lines by occupants of property no. AC-179- B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, in the neighbourhood where the Appellant resides. The Appellant being aggrieved by the resultant waterlogging etc. had approached the civic authorities to take necessary remedial action, which evidently had not been carried out by the respondents. Thus the grievance of the Appellant could not be mitigated despite repeated rounds of complaints before various public officials of the MCD,which has resulted in the filing of these RTI cases.
Since the primary issue raised in the above appeals is the same, hence the appeals are decided by a common order, wherein the contentions of the different departments and respective officials is noted hereunder:
1. The Respondent representing EE(B-I), KPZ has submitted written note dated 25.09.2019 statingthat since the issue relates to EE(M-I)/KPZ and AC, Sanitation dept./DEMS, hence the RTI application was transferred to the relevant custodians of information vide letter dated 24.11.2017.on similar lines, the Respondent representing EE(M-I), KPZ has also submitted a written submission dated 26.09.2019 stating that since the issue relates to AC, Sanitation dept./DEMS, hence the RTI application was Page 4 of 11 transferred to the relevant custodian of information vide letters dated 14.12.2017 and 27.12.2017.
2. The SS/DEMS/KPZ from the Sanitation Department has submitted a reply dated 18.09.2019upon receipt of CIC hearing notice providing all available information in response to the RTI queries about the challans and notices issued in this case and also informing the Appellant that the relevant case is pending adjudication at the Tis Hazari Court. The Respondent has further claimed that the RTI application was not received in their office in 2017 and hence response could be furnished only upon receipt of the hearing notice and accompanying documents from the Commission [CIC].
Decision:
Upon hearing the parties present at length during the hearing, it has been indicated particularly by the respondents that the actual custodian of information in these cases are the Sanitation Department and the Building - II, KPZ Department. While the explanation of the Sanitation Department vide reply dated 18.09.2019, of not having received the RTI application in 2017 is not found convincing, there is no explanation found on record from the Building-II Department, Keshavpuram Zone. Accordingly, the Commission hereby directs Shri Ram Avatar-Sanitation Superintendent/DEMS,to furnish an explanation for the delay caused and as to how an official document forwarded by the EE(M-I) on 14.12.2017 and 27.12.2017 did not reach his office.
Considering the inaction in resolving the issue of illegal drainage, non-supply of information in response to RTI queries and absence during hearing of these Second Appeals, the PIO/EE(B-II)/KPZ- Sh. Sanjeev Mishra is hereby put to notice for multiple violations of the RTI Act and causing deliberate obstruction to the flow of information in contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act. Explanation from the PIO/EE(B-II)/KPZ- Sh. Sanjeev Mishra must reach the Commission by 20.10.2019, failing which appropriate punitive action shall be initiated by the Registry of this Bench.
(7) CIC/NDMCH/C/2019/111164 (8) CIC/NDMCC/A/2019/111498 The Complainant/Appellant filed the same RTI applications dated 26.08.2018 seeking information on four points regarding his complaint dated 08.08.2010 in regard to property No. 8, Central Market, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi. He sought action taken thereupon, sequence of movement of the complaints with various public authorities and further, he sought inspection of work documents, records.
And other related information.
PIO/Dy. Director(Bldg.) C&L/PIO vide letter dated 05.10.2018 transferred the RTI application to the concerned PIOs and also stated that Appellant may inspect the documents after depositing the amount of Rs. 2/- per page.
By another reply of PIO & EE(B)-II/KPZ vide letter dated 13.12.2018 stated as follows:-
"In this regard, it is informed that the said property does not come under the jurisdiction of North DMC and the jurisdiction lies with DDA, to whom a copy of the RTI application is already transferred".Page 5 of 11
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 07.01.2019. FAA vide order dated 13.02.2019 upheld the reply of PIO's letter dated 13.12.2018.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing. On being questioned by the Commission, why the instant case should not be barred by the principle of res judicata in view of the Commission's earlier decision dated 07.02.2018 by a former Bench [CIC/DDATY/A/2017/150449, CIC/DDATY/A/2017/150450, CIC/DDATY/A/2017/127984], the Appellant explained that though the property in question is the same, the queries raised in these cases and in the earlier appeals are completely different. While the earlier appeals related to an issue of mutation of the property, the aforementioned two cases arising out of the RTI application dated 26.08.2018 centred around his complaint dated 08.08.2010.
Written submissions dated 19.09.2019 have been received from the Appellant in respect of file No. CIC/NDMCH/C/2019/111164 and file No. CIC/NDMCC/A/2019/111498.
Respondent from Building Section of the DDA, present during hearing has submitted document dated 12.03.2019 indicating that the area referred to by the Appellant being de-notified and falls under the jurisdiction of North DMC. A notification dated 23.10.2018 from the DDA, Building Section has also been placed on record which further confirms the Respondent's stance. The DDA, Building Section, C&I had transferred the RTI application to the relevant custodian of information, viz. Dy. Director (Commercial Land) Section who in their opinion holds the relevant information sought by the Appellant.
Decision It is noted that the relevant custodian of information, as pointed out by the parties present during hearing are the PIO/EE(B-II), KPZ, NDMC - Shri Sanjeev Mishra and Shri Sunil Gupta - Asst. Director CL [Commission. Land] - DDA, both of whom are absent during the hearing today. The concerned PIOs have failed to provide the relevant information as alleged by the Appellant and have not sent any submission to assist the process of hearing today and instead vitiated the hearing by their deliberate absence, despite service of hearing notice in advance as Respondent No. 7 and 10.
Under the circumstances, the Commission hereby directs:
i) the PIO/EE(B-II), KPZ, NDMC - Shri Sanjeev Mishra and Asst. Director, CL [Commission. Land]- DDA- Shri Sunil Gupta to furnish complete information in response of the queries raised by the Appellant, within three weeks of receipt of this order. Compliance report from both the abovementioned officials must reach the Commission by 30.10.2019, failing which non-compliance proceedings shall stand initiated.Page 6 of 11
ii) Registry of this Bench is directed to issue SHOW CAUSE NOTICE to both
a) Shri Sanjeev Mishra- PIO/EE(B-II), KPZ, NDMC and b) Shri Sunil Gupta - Asst. Director, CL [Commission. Land]- DDA. Response to the Show Casue Notice must reach the Commission atleast one week prior to the Show Cause hearing scheduled.
The PIO/EE(B-I)- Sh. D D Singh shall serve copy of this order to Shri Sanjeev Mishra - PIO/EE(B-II)/KPZ and Shri Parveen Kumar - JE(B)/C&I, DDA shall serve a copy of this order upon Shri Sunil Gupta- Asst. Director, CL/DDA and ensure compliance of the aforementioned two specific directions of the Commission.
(9)CIC/NDMCC/A/2019/111167 The Appellant filed the RTI application dated 22.08.2018 seeking information on four points regarding two of his complaints No. 2018072613 dated 20.07.2010 and complaint No. 2018073010 dated 24.07.2010. In this regard, he has sought stage wise and official wise detailed action taken report.
PIO/North DMC vide letter dated 07.12.2018 transferred to EE(B)-I/KPZ for providing necessary information.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 07.01.2019. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 18.09.2019 in respect of file No. CIC/NDMCC/A/2019/111167.
Respondents have submitted a written submission dated 26.09.2019 stating that vide communication dated 14.12.2018reply had been furnished to the Appellant providing complete information. Appellant claims that he has not received the reply, EE(B-I) claims that he has adequate proof of sending the reply. At this juncture, the Appellant seeks to inspect the complete records, as claimed to have been furnished by the Respondent.
Decision Upon hearing the averments of both parties, the Commission hereby directs Shri D D Singh- PIO/EE(B-I)/KPZ to submit before the Commission by 25.10.2019 appropriate proof of having served copy of the reply dated 14.12.2018 upon the Appellant, with a copy of the proof marked to the Appellant.
The Respondent, PIO/EE(B-I), KPZ shall allow the Appellant to inspect the relevant records sought by him, and provide copies of the documents identified by the Appellant @ Rs. 2/- per page.
(10) CIC/NDMCC/C/2019/125212 (11) CIC/NDMCC/A/2019/125207 The Complainant/Appellant filed the same RTI applications dated 07.01.2019 seeking information on six points regarding his complaint dated 06.01.2019 about occupants of property AC-179B, Shalimar Bagh Delhi having illegally diverted their household drain to Page 7 of 11 the rain water drain. In this regard, he has sought stage wise and official wise detailed action taken report.
PIO/KPZ vide letter dated 01.02.2019 stated as follows:-
Point nos. 1 to 9:- Does not pertain to Public Health Department, Keshav Puram Zone.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 18.02.2019.Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submissions have been received from the Appellant/Complainant vide letter dated 19.09.2019 with respect to files No.CIC/NDMCC/C/2019/125212 and CIC/NDMCC/A/2019/125207.
The Respondent PIO reiterates the reply dated 01.02.2019 and claims that the Health Department as unable to answer queries raised by the Appellant, since it deals with health hazards when there is any complaint in this regard, whereas the queries raised by the Appellant related to occupants of property AC-179B, Shalimar Bagh Delhi having illegally diverted their household drain to the rain water drain, which is not an issue within the jurisdiction Health Department. The DHO, Health Dept states that he has not found any mosquito breeding in the area. Unless there is any mosquito breeding due to the sanitation problem, action of the Health Department is not called for.
Decision In the light of the facts of the case at hand, the Commission notes that information as sought has been provided and appears appropriate. Hence no further action is called for in this case.
Before parting with the case at hand, the Commission notes with much concern that the irony in the above cases is that substantial amount of time and office hours have been wasted by the public officials in transferring the RTI applications to each other rather than addressing the actual issue of remedying the drain related problem. The resolution of the issue raised by the Appellant about alleged diversion of household drain to the rain water draincould have prevented the filing of numerous RTIs on the same issue. This is a classic case of bureaucratic red-tape in action and the practice of shirking responsibility by public officials, which has led to unnecessary and endless rounds of correspondence being exchanged, without arriving at any logical conclusion. The conduct of the respondent public authority defeats the very purpose of the RTI Act. While the Commission agrees that repeated raising of the same issue by the Appellant through circuitous and vexatious queries cannot be entertained, yet appropriate and timely action by civic agencies could have quelled such convoluted and repetitive litigation.
The appeals are accordingly disposed off with these directions.
Show Cause Hearing:- 21.11.2019 Pursuant to the above decision, the Commission received letters dated 13.11.2019 from the appellant in respect of File No. CIC/NDMCH/C/2019/111164 and CIC/NDMCC/A/2019/111498, wherein Show Page 8 of 11 Cause Notices had been issued alleging non-compliance of the Commission's orders.
Reply to the Show Cause has been received from Noticee No.1- Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Misra in the form of letter dated 24.10.2019, relevant extract whereof is as follows:
"In the RTIs filed in respect of the above appeals, the then PIO/EE(B)- II/K.P. Zone - Sh. Pushpender Kumar vide letter dated 13.12.2018 stated that the said property (C-8, Central Market, Ashok Vihar, Ph-I, Delhi) does not come under the jurisdiction of North - DMC and the jurisdiction lies with DDA, to whom a copy of the RTI application is already transferred. Therefore, relevant custodian of the information at that point of time was the then PIO/EE(B)-II/KP Zone - Sh Pushpender Kumar (now Executive Engineer Q.C. Cell, North - DMC) as the undersigned, present PIO/EE(B)-II/KP Zone was posted in Building Department-II/KP Zone only in the month of March 2019. Moreover, as soon as it came to my notice, I immediately moved a note to Headquarters for confirming whether the building activities of C-8, Central Market, Ashok Vihar vests with North DMC or not and Town Planning Department has informed that no information is available in their office in this regard.
As regards absence of the undersigned (PIO/EE(B)-II/KP Zone) during the hearing of appeals on 27.09.2019, it is submitted that the undersigned was busy in some other assignment and therefore Sh. S.K. Goyal, Assistant Engineer (B) was asked to attend the hearing and he ensured his presence accordingly during the hearing 23.09.2019 and therefore, I have not vitiated the hearing by deliberate absence as Sh S.K. Goyal, Asstt. Engineer (B) was present in the hearing. In respect of decision mentioned at (i) above, it is submitted that complete information of the queries raised by the Appellant will be submitted within three weeks of receipt of this order and compliance report will be furnished to the Commission by 30.10.2019. As regards decision mentioned at (ii) above, show cause may kindly be issued to the then PIO/EE(B)-II/KPZ (now Executive Engineer Q.C. Cell, North DMC as the information was provided by him vide letter dated 13.12.2018 and the undersigned joined Building Department -II/KPZ only in March, 2019. Further, I hereby tender my unconditional apology for my un-intentional absence during the hearing on 23.09.2019 even though Sh. S.K. Goyal, A.E.(B)/APIO was present during the hearing and the same will be taken care of in future."
Replies dated 04.11.2019 and 07.11.2019 have been received from Noticee No.2- Sh. Sunil Gupta, AD(CL), DDA also, with respect to the Show Cause Notice issued upon him, relevant extracts whereof are as follows:
Page 9 of 11"The Appellant has attended the office for inspection of record pertains to property No.8, CC, Wazirpur, Phase I, Delhi. Appellant has appeared in this office on 4/11/2019 at 3.00 pm for inspection of record. The inspection of record has been made and photocopy of all the identified/desired documents i.e. page numbering from 104 to 135/N & SCN dt. 11.10.2017 & supplementary noting 4 pages and 1 copy of relevant portion of despatch register have been provided to the Appellant. The appellant has been satisfied with the inspection of record."
Explaining the cause of his absence in the Commission, during hearing, the Noticee No. 2 has stated as follows:
"That CIC hearing notice dated 30.8.2019 was received in this office on dated 3.09.2019 whereas this notice was marked to Shri H.K. Sharma, ASO(custodian of record) with a verbal direction to get the record file and accompany the undersigned to attend the hearing; but due to shifting of record from one place to other place, the concerned file on which the notice for hearing was placed, was mixed up in other record files. However, the undersigned/answering respondent tender his apology & regret for not attending the hearing with folded hands."
Decision: 30.12.2019 On perusal of the reply furnished by the PIO/EE(B-II)/KPZ, the position so emerges that the Noticee No.1 has denied the role and responsibility of not only himself but also that of North DMC in being custodian of information, desired by the appellant. The Noticee No.2 representing the DDA claims to have provided inspection of records, and endorsement of the appellant indicating his satisfaction has also been placed on record. Strangely, the same authority, viz. DDA had denied holding the information and submitted a letter dated 23.10.2018 placing reliance on a notification dated 20.07.88 claiming that abovesaid area was transferred to North DMC.
The submissions of PIO/EE(B-II)/KPZ are found plausible and acceptable in so far as denial of information is concerned, since it appears from a combined reading of the explanations that the PIO/EE(B-II)/KPZ was not the custodian of information. However, with respect to the submission of Sh. Sanjeev Misra about having deputed an official to attend the hearing on his behalf, thereby not vitiating the proceedings, is not tenable because it is not enough to merely attend the hearing. The representative attending the hearing should be well prepared with facts of the case to be able to assist in the course of the hearing. Hence merely deputing a subordinate with no knowledge of the case does vitiate the proceedings as it did in this case, since Sh. Goyal- AE deputed by Sh. Sanjiv Misra was not equipped with vital information about the hearing, which led to wastage of time and another hearing. The Noticee No. 1- Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Misra-PIO/EE(B-II)/KPZ is thus cautioned to strictly adhere to the timeline as prescribed under the RTI Act and also depute efficient and well prepared officials in the event that he is not able to attend the hearing himself, for a reasonable cause. Be that as it may, the penal proceedings initiated against the Noticee No. Page 10 of 11 1- Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Misra-PIO/EE(B-II)/KPZ for non furnishing of information is found to be non maintainable and thus the proceedings are hereby dropped.
On the other hand, the contradictions in the submissions of Noticee No.2 and his representative present during hearing, are found unacceptable, particularly since it led to misleading submissions and wastage of judicial time. The inspection of documents which have been provided now by the DDA, if provided earlier, would have saved time for this hearing. Records reveal that inspection was offered by the DDA even earlier vide reply dated 05.10.2018. Perusal of records further reveals that the appellant had filed his non compliance application on 26.10.2019, pursuant to which he had undertaken the inspection and acknowledged receipt of information vide endorsement dated 04.11.2019. No further objection has been received from the appellant. Under the circumstances, the Commission hereby directs that penal action initiated against the Noticee No. 2 - Sh. Sunil Gupta, AD(CL), be dropped.
The instant case is thus disposed off.
Y. K. Sinha(वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 11 of 11