Central Information Commission
Mrdevendra Singh vs Gnctd on 19 November, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
File No.CIC/SA/A/2014/000079
Appellant : Shri Devender Singh
Respondent : Public Grievances Commission
GNCTD, Delhi
Date of hearing : 07112014
Date of decision : 19112014
Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)
Referred Sections : Sections 3, 19(3) of the RTI
Act
Result : Appeal allowed/
Disposed of
The appellant is not present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. Satish Kumar
Chopra, APIO, Public Grievances Commission, GNCTD, Delhi.
FACTS:
2. Appellant through his RTI application has sought information on 4 Points Viz, i) That the appellant had appeared on 11.06.2013 in a PGC hearing and during the hearing one Client had appeared, the detail of the Client ii) In PGC letter recieved by him, in Para 3 registered (CIC/SA/A/2014/000079) Page 1 Power of Attorney was stated, the copy of the same iii) Had made a Complaint regarding illegal construction on a land, what action was taken on it.... etc. PIO replied on 09072013. Being unsatisfied with the information furnished, the appellant preferred First Appeal. FAA by his Order dated 13082013 had disposed off the appeal after detailed discussion of the case, restated as under:
" ... the appellant stated that he had filed a greviance petition in PGC which was heard and order was passed . in context of the disposal of his grievances petition, appelant has sought the information under the RTI Act, 2005 (2) The PIO while replying to the first question in the RTI apliation dated nil received in the PGC on 19/06/2013 informed, the appellant that name and address of the person claimed to be affected party in the grievances petition is not available in the records i.e the grievance case file and not recorded in the attendance sheet placed in the case file.
Nonetheless the order passed by PGC does reflect that a person claimed to be affected party was allowed to participate in the proceedings and his arguments recorded. (3) PIO has informed the appellant while replying to the question No. 2 in RTI application that the certified copies of the document i.e Power of Attorney could not given since the person claimed to be affected party has not filed such documents through he was heard during the proceedings as reflected in the order of PGC. In other words, the documents sought are not available in the records.
(4) The appellant in the third question in his RTI application has asked about action taken by the PGC with regard to removal of the unauthorises construction on land bearing Kasra No. 26.21.1,26/22/1, village Jindpur. The PIO has stated in his letter to appellant that greviance petition has been heard in PGC in which the appellant was present and order has been passed by the Commission.
(5) Appellant has sought name and address of the person who has raised unauthorised godown on land bearing Kasra No. 26.21.1,26/22/1, village Jindpur in the fourth question of (CIC/SA/A/2014/000079) Page 2 his RTI application. The PIO has replied saying that the appellant argued that he has the right to seek the informatiom from the PIO and the PIO is expexted, to proovide the available information and not to advice him about appellant's expected responsibility/duty. (6) The information provided by the PIO in respect of question 1 to 3 in the RTI application are found to be satisfactory to the extend that information sought is not available in th records. On the other hand, the reply given in respect of question no. 4 in the RTI application is not appropriate. As such , the PIO shall provide the information sought by the appellant, if such information is available in the records within 15 days. (7) However, in the context of the reply to the question no.1 to 3, it would be required from the point of view of right procedure to be followed in the commission to maintain the eseential records that have the bearing in the procedings. The person claimed to be affected party would have esstablished his credentials including his address and presented the related documents in support of his contentions before the Presiding Officer. Hence, in such situation the officers assisting the Presiding Officer/ the Personal Branch of the Presiding Officer would be required to obtain the copies of the documents apart from the details of the address of the person who is allowed to contend his point of view during hearing.
(8) Therefore, Greviance Banch may put up such a matter in the relevant file so that appropriate decision are taken and communicated to all concerned. Hence, copy of te order may be sent to Dy. Secretary within 5 days"
Being unsatisfied with the information furnished, the appellant has approached the Commission in Second Appeal.
Decision:
(CIC/SA/A/2014/000079) Page 3
3. The respondent officer made his submissions. The appellant is not present. The
respondent officer has presented a set of papers, on perusal of which found that the information on point no 4 has been provided by the CPIO on 29.8.2013 in compliance of FAA order. Appeal is closed (M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Public Grievances Commission, BBlock, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi
2. Shri Devender Singh H.No.982, Gali No.6, Alipur, Delhi110036 (CIC/SA/A/2014/000079) Page 4