Central Information Commission
Mr.Surendra Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002036/9252
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002036
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Surendra Kumar
C/o Mr. Hawa Singh Bhardwaj
R/o F- 1/112, Sultanpuri,
Delhi - 86.
Respondent : Ms. Krishna Chhikara
Public Information Officer & Dy. Education Officer Municipal Corporation of Delhi Education Department (Rohini) Sector 5, Rohini Zone, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 09/03/2010 PIO replied : 20/04/2010 First appeal filed on : 14/05/2010 First Appellate Authority order : Not enclosed Second Appeal received on : 16/07/2010 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Under which rules has the Deputy Education Officer Ms. Krishna Information was given to the Chikari not provided the information under the fixed 48 hours? Details concerned department within of those rules or provisions that made this possible. time. The information was not covered by the requirement of giving information in 48 hours.
2. Whether Ms. Krishna Chikari should have given the information within As Above. the assigned 48 hours or not?
3. Who is the respective officer who is responsible to deal with such cases As Above. from the National Women Commission? What are the actions taken in such cases?
4. Who is the respective officer who is responsible to deal with such cases As Above. from the Police Department? What are the actions taken in such cases?
5. Who is the respective officer who is responsible to deal with such cases The matter does not pertain to from the National Child Rights Commission? What are the actions this department. taken in such cases?
6. Who is the respective officer who is responsible to deal with such cases Unclear in reply. from the Ministry of Law? What are the actions taken in such cases?
7. Who is the respective officer who is responsible to deal with such cases The matter does not pertain to from the Home Ministry, Govt. of Delhi? What are the actions taken in this department. such cases?
8. Is it true that PIO Ms. Swatantra Balaji has purposely not transferred Not related to information. the application 2461E to the other relevant offices but only transferred Page 1 of 2 it to the Rohini Zone Department? If it isn't true, then certified details of the date of transfer of application to various offices. Also provide the provision details under which the appellant was not given the information.
9. Does the Education department maintain records of such cases in its As Above.
department? Details and name of the official who provides the following information.
10 The dates on which the application was transferred to the various As Above.
. departments by Ms. Swatantra Balaji.
11 Copy of the FIR that has been registered on 11/11/2009 relating to the Information was given to the
. case. concerned department within
time.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order passed by the FAA Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Sharma representing Mr. Surendra Kumar; Respondent: Ms. Krishna Chhikara, Public Information Officer & Dy. Education Officer;
The appellant has been given fair amount of information but would like to inspect the relevant records. The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the appellant on 14 September 2010 from 10.30AM onwards. If there are certain letters or records which are not there the PIO will certify that these are not in existence.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the appellant on 14 September 2010 from 10.30AM onwards. The PIO will give attested photocopies of the records which the appellant wants free of cost upto 200 pages. 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 07 September 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM) Page 2 of 2