Central Information Commission
Surinder Pal Adv vs Ministry Of Parliamentary Affairs on 15 November, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi -110067.
Tel : +91-11-26186535
Appeal No.CIC/VS/A/2014/002240/MOPAF
Appellant: Mr. Surinder Pal,
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer,
Shromani Gurudwara Prabandhak
Committee, Amritsar.
Date of Hearing: 13.11.2017
Dated of Decision: 13.11.2017
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 15.3.2014 seeking information regarding detail of fees paid by the Shromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), Amritsar to Sh. H.S. Phoolka, Advocate or his Juniors/Assistants for filing and pursuing in courts the cases of victims of anti-sikh riots in Delhi and other places in India; detail of all cases that Sh.
H.S. Phoolka, advocate has filed and is pursuing in courts in connection with anti-Sikh riots of 1984 at different places in India. The details should contain the FIR number with date, address of Police Station, addresses of the complainant and accused in each case separately and the section of law under he has been charged.
2. The appellant filed first appeal 6.5.2014 before the first appellate authority(FAA). The response of PIO and FAA is not on record. The appellant filed second appeal on 22.7.2014 before the Commission on the ground that the information should be provided to him.
Hearing:
3. The respondent Shri Kuldeep Singh, Asstt. Supervisor was heard telephonically. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
4. The respondent stated that no FIR was lodged by the SGPC and therefore, no information on this aspect is available with them. The respondent further stated that vide letter dated 10.1.2015 they had replied to the appellant on all the points of the RTI application including payments made to Shri Phoolka or his juniors. The respondent said that the same information was again sent to the appellant on 28.10.2017. Discussion/Observations:
5. The requisite information has been provided to the appellant. The Commission observes that respondent had provided information to the appellant very late.
Decision:
6. The respondent is directed to show cause why action should not be taken against him for contravening the timelines prescribed in the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar