Central Information Commission
Rajendra Prasad Jain vs Registrar Cooperative Society on 8 April, 2021
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गगं नाथ मागग ,मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील सख्ं या / Second Appeal No.:
CIC/ROCDH/A/2019/105924/REGCS
Rajendra Prasad Jain .....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनतम
PIO,
Assistant Registrar-(Section-5), Office
of the Registrar Co-Operative Societies
(Government of NCT of Delhi), Section-5, Old
Court Building, Parliament Street, NewDelhi-110001.
2. Nodal Public Information Officer,
Assistant Registrar-(RTI Branch), Office
of Registrar Co-Operative Societies
(Government of NCT of Delhi),R.T.I. Section,
Old Court Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.
...प्रतर्वतदीगण/Respondent
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22-10-2018
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 14-11-2018
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Second Appeal received at CIC : 08-02-2019
Date of Hearing : 08-04-2021
Date of Decision : 08-04-2021
lwpuk vk;qDr : Jhहीरालालसामररया
Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following 31 points information:
1. The copy of the list of Members (originally-inducted) and duly verified by the RCS; and further recommended/forwarded to the D.D.A.; and in pursuance of which the 16,000-sqm. Of Land was allotted and delivered/handed-over to the CGHS.
2. The copy of the Builders-Agreement executed by the elected/nominated officer-Bearers of Smaller-Body of the CGHS.
3. The status and amounts of the payments, etc. effected/made by/through:
Sh. Chand, towards construction cost of the buildings/towers/blocks etc. made for the CGHS.
4. The contributors of money made by the original 238-Members, respectively.
5. The details for the Confirmations, particulars, etc. of the Creditors and Others having wholly and/or partly and any Charge/Lien upon the land and buildings, in lieu of their lawfully-recoverable dues, etc. Etc. Having not received any reply from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14-11-2018 which was also not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submissions have been received from PIO, Asstt. Registrar (Sec-V), Office of the Registrar Co-Operative Societies, GNCTD, vide letter dated 09.03.2021, as under:
Page 2 of 6The information furnished by PIO, Asstt. Registrar (Sec-V), Office of the Registrar Co-Operative Societies, GNCTD, vide letter dated 05.03.2021, as under:Page 3 of 6
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Mr. Surinder Narang, PIO, Asstt. Registrar (Sect-5), Office of the Registrar Co-Operative Societies, GNCTD The Appellant submitted that he has not received any information/reply, in the instant RTI Application, till date.
The Respondent submitted that information, vide letter dated 09.03.2021, was already sent to the Appellant via speed-post. However, PIO submitted a copy of the reply to the Appellant during the course of hearing as well.
Upon Commission's instance, PIO submitted that he has recently joined as PIO and hence, he was unaware of the reasons for previous non-reply of the RTI Application.
The Appellant, after perusal of the said information received from the PIO during the course of hearing, stated that information furnished is vague and evasive in nature and, moreover, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the information received. The Appellant clarified the fact that the issue in the instant RTI Application pertains to improper functioning of the said society The Respondent submitted that information, as available on record, has been supplied to the Respondent. Furthermore, he is willing to provide an opportunity of inspection of relevant documents to the Appellant to address his grievance in the said matter. Moreover, he submitted that the concerned matter is already under investigation by CBI.Page 4 of 6
Decision:
At the outset, the Commission expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the then PIO in not having provided any reply on the RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of RTI Act. Now, Commission was unable to procure the name of the then PIO and present PIO was unable to provide the details in respect of the same, therefore Commission directs then PIO through the present PIO to send his 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 will ensure service of this order to then PIO.
Commission, after perusal of the records and submission made by both the parties, directs the PIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect relevant documents, with respect to information sought in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and in writing. In case relevant records are available at some other department, then PIO must procure the said documents and arrange them for said inspection. Copy of documents, if desired, should be provided to the Appellant after redacting/blacking-out third party information. Further, the relevant information must be provided, free of cost upto 50 pages, and afterwards subject to payment of the prescribed fees by the appellant as per Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012. Commission's direction should be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order and a compliance report should be sent to the Commission by PIO enumerating the details of documents inspected and copy of documents provided to the Appellant.
Now, Commission takes into account the apprehension laid down by the Appellant with regards to authenticity of the replies provided in the instant matter. Thus, Commission in order to allay said apprehension of the Appellant, directs the PIO to file an appropriate affidavit stating that available and relevant information as sought in the above referred case was provided to him and no material information has been withheld from disclosure. The said affidavit shall Page 5 of 6 be sent by the PIO to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Further, Commission observes that appellant has grievance with Respondent Authority regarding his complaints concerning the said society, and, in doing so, he desires Commission's intervention in respect of the same. Commission counselled the Appellant that redressal of such grievances is outside the adjudicatory power of the Commission envisaged under RTI Act, 2005. Appellant must approach the appropriate forums for redressal of said grievances. No further action is warranted.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) ू ना आयुक्त) Information Commissioner (सच Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) Ram Parkash Grover (रतम प्रकतश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Copy to be served through present PIO to:
Then PIO, Assistant Registrar-(Section-5), Office of the Registrar Co-Operative Societies, (Government of NCT of Delhi), Section-5, Old Court Building, Parliament Street, NewDelhi-110001.
--(For taking note of the adverse remarks of the Commission and complying with the directions)--Page 6 of 6