Central Information Commission
A. K. Malik vs Delhi Fire Services on 27 May, 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/DLFSR/A/2021/641413
A. K. Malik .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Office of the Director, Delhi Fire Service-HQ
(Government of NCT of Delhi),
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
2. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Administration/RTI Branch, Delhi Fire
Service-HQ (Government of NCT of Delhi),
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.06.2021
CPIO replied on : 30.06.2021
First appeal filed on : 26.07.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 18.08.2021
Second Appeal received at CIC : Not on record
Date of Hearing : 27.05.2022
Date of Decision : 27.05.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 6
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
Etc. • PIO, O/o. Directorate of Delhi Fire Services, furnished reply, vide letter dated 30.06.2021, as under:
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 26.07.2021.Page 2 of 6
• The FAA vide order dated 18.08.2021 held as under:
• PIO, DFS-HQ, furnished reply dated 27.08.2021, as under:Page 3 of 6
• Written submissions have been received from PIO, DFS-HQ, vide letter dated 23.05.2022, as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 4 of 6
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present.
Respondent: Mr. Mukesh Verma, PIO, DFS, present.
Appellant stated that relevant information, with regards to Para 1 & 2, has not been furnished to him in the instant matter. He further requested the Commission that complete information be furnished to him.
PIO submitted that the information, as available in their records, has already been furnished to the Appellant, as the RTI has been transferred to concerned department. He further submitted that he would abide by the orders of Commission, if any.
Upon Commission's instance, Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the documents furnished by the concerned PIO.
Decision:
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that Appellant is not satisfied with the reply furnished by the concerned PIO, with regards to Para 1 & 2 of instant RTI Application. Therefore, Commission directs the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised reply, with regards to Para 1 & 2 of the instant RTI Application, to the appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
In case relevant information 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) Page 5 of 6 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 6 of 6