Central Information Commission
Sangeeta Gahlot vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 24 March, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/ADDDM/A/2020/136598
Sangeeta Gahlot .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Sub-Divisional Magistrate-(Hauz Khas)
(Government of NCT of Delhi) Hauz Khas,
South District, M. B. Road, Saket,
New Delhi-110068.
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Sub-Divisional Magistrate-(Saket),
Revenue Department (Government
of NCT of Delhi), Saket, South District,
M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi-110068.
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Sub-Divisional Magistrate-HQ-(South),
Office of the Deputy Commissioner-(South)
(Government of NCT of Delhi), South District,
M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi-110068.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.01.2020
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 04.09.2020
First Appellate Authority order : 22.09.2020
Second Appeal received at CIC : 24.11.2020
Date of Hearing : 24.03.2022
Date of Decision : 24.03.2022
Page 1 of 5
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
Etc. • Dissatisfied that no response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 04.09.2020.Page 2 of 5
• The FAA vide order dated 22.09.2020, held as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present.
Respondent: Not present.
Appellant stated that relevant information, as sought in the instant RTI Application, has not been furnished to her. She further requested the Commission that complete set of information be furnished to her.
Upon Commission's instance, Appellant stated that no information has been furnished to her till date.Page 3 of 5
Decision:
At the outset, Commission takes grave exception to the absence of PIO, O/o. Sub-Divisional Magistrate - (Hauz Khas), during hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. Accordingly, PIO is hereby directed to file a written explanation justifying the said conduct, failing which an action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act will be initiated against him/her, if necessary.
PIO, O/o. Sub-Divisional Magistrate-(Hauz Khas), is directed to ensure that his written submission reaches the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which ex-parte action will be initiated against him/her.
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the then PIO, PIO, O/o. Sub-Divisional Magistrate-(Hauz Khas), in not having provided any reply on the RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of RTI Act as well as for non-compliance of FAA's order dated 22.09.2020. In view of the foregoing, Commission directs then PIO, O/o. Sub-Divisional Magistrate- (Hauz Khas), through the present PIO to send his/her written submissions to justify as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the gross violation of its provisions. In doing so, if any other persons are also responsible for the omission, the then PIO shall serve a copy of this order on such other persons under intimation to the Commission and ensure that written submissions of all such concerned persons are sent to the Commission. The said written submission of then PIO along with submissions of other concerned persons, if any, should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The present PIO, O/o. Sub-Divisional Magistrate-(Hauz Khas), will ensure service of this order to then PIO.
Furthermore, Commission, on the basis of perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that relevant information, as sought in instant RTI Application, has not been furnished to the Appellant by the concerned PIO. Therefore, Commission directs the concerned PIO, O/o. Sub- Divisional Magistrate-(Hauz Khas), to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised reply, with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of Page 4 of 5 this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
In case relevant information, as sought in the instant RTI Application, pertains to some other Branch/Department, then the PIO should procure and provide the same to the Appellant. In doing so, PIO must make sure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the appellant. No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Copy to be served through present PIO to:
Then PIO, Sub-Divisional Magistrate-(Hauz Khas) (Government of NCT of Delhi) Hauz Khas, South District, M. B. Road, Saket, New Delhi-110068.
--(For taking note of the adverse remarks of the Commission and complying with the directions)--Page 5 of 5