Central Information Commission
Chander Parkash vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 18 January, 2021
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील सख्ं या / Second Appeal No.: CIC/ADDDM/A/2018/145991
CHANDER PARKASH .....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनतम
PIO,
Sub-Divisional Magistrate-(Najafgarh)
(Government of NCT of Delhi),
Najafgarh, South-West District, SDM-NG Office
Complex, Tura Mandi, Najafgarh New Delhi-110043.
...प्रतर्वतदीगण/Respondent
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17-03-2018
CPIO replied on : Nil
First appeal filed on : 27-04-2018
First Appellate Authority order : 08-06-2018
Second Appeal dated : 18-07-2018
Date of Hearing : 18-01-2021
Date of Decision : 18-01-2021
lwpuk vk;qDr : Jh हीरालाल सामररया
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information through 02 points regarding get information and certified copies of letter No. F10(9)/SDM/NG/RTI/2016/4238 dt. 04-10-2017 and F10(9)/SDM/NG/RTI/2016/4235 dt. 04-10-2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided information to the Appellant. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Page 1 of 4 The following were present: -
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Manoj Rawat, PA to SDM, Rep. of the PIO, Sub-Divisional Magistrate-(Najafgarh) (Government of NCT of Delhi), Najafgarh, South-West District, SDM-NG Office Complex, Najafgarh New Delhi, Present in person. Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO. He further stated that Division bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court had stated that in urbanised villages U/s 507A of DMC Act, 1957 the provisions of D.I.R Act will cease to apply. Since his village is urbanised village under the notification dated 16.05.2017, the said order has not been complied till date.
Rep. of the PIO produced a copy of the reply before the Commission and submitted that inadvertently no reply could be provided to the Appellant before. However, upon receipt of Commissions hearing notice appropriate reply was provided on 07.01.2021, he presented the copy of the reply for perusal of the Commission. He tendered his unconditional apology for such a lapse.
Upon Commissions instance, Rep. of the PIO expressed his inability to provide the name of the erstwhile PIO, however, he affirmed that they would comply with the directions of the Commissions, if any in the instant matter.
Rep. of the PIO while adverting to the statement of the Appellant submitted that no such office order has been received from the Revenue HQs Delhi on the averred matter and whatever was available on record has been provided.
Appellant interjected to state that said order must be placed in his file and same is deliberately withheld.
Decision:
At the outset, 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 Rep. of the 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 show-cause as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the Page 2 of 4 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.
Nonetheless, Commission has gone through the case records and based on proceedings during hearing observes that Appellant apprehends that relevant information must be available on record and being deliberately withheld from him. Now, Commission takes into account the tender age of the Appellant and in order to allay his apprehension direct the PIO to provide an opportunity of inspection of relevant records as sought the instant RTI Application to the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to him telephonically and in writing within 15 days of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission enumerating the details of documents inspected and copy of documents provided. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant, will be provided free of cost up to 25 pages and for pages beyond this limit, prescribed fees shall be charged as per Rule 4 of RTI Rules, 2012.
In view of the foregoing, no further action lies.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (रतम प्रकतश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) Page 3 of 4 011-26180514 Copy to be served through the PIO to:
Then PIO, Sub-Divisional Magistrate-(Najafgarh) (Government of NCT of Delhi), Najafgarh, South-West District, SDM-NG Office Complex, Tura Mandi, Najafgarh New Delhi-110043.
--(For complying with the show cause notice as above)--Page 4 of 4