Central Information Commission
Mr.Satya Pal Tanwar vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 May, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/000836
CIC/AD/A/2012/000837
CIC/AD/A/2012/000838
CIC/AD/A/2012/000839
CIC/AD/A/2012/000840
CIC/AD/A/2012/000841
CIC/AD/A/2012/000842
CIC/AD/A/2012/000843
Date of Hearing : May 11, 2012
Date of Decision : May 11, 2012
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Satya Pal
R/o WZ492
Village Naraina
New Delhi 110 028
The Applicant was represented by Shri Ram Pal Singh during the hearing
Respondents
Department of Revenue
O/o SDM (Rajouri Garden)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Middle School Building
Rampura
Delhi 110 035
Represented by : Shri Pradeep Bhardwaj, UDC
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/000836
CIC/AD/A/2012/000837
CIC/AD/A/2012/000838
CIC/AD/A/2012/000839
CIC/AD/A/2012/000840
CIC/AD/A/2012/000841
CIC/AD/A/2012/000842
CIC/AD/A/2012/000843
ORDER
CIC/AD/A/2012/000836 Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.21.9.11 with the PIO, Department of Revenue, GNCTD seeking information against three points about sealing of properties by Thana in Kirti Nagar. The PIO replied on 13.10.11 enclosing point wise information. The Applicant filed an appeal dt.21.10.11 with the Appellate Authority (Copy not legible). The Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal vide order dt.8.11.11 after hearing the matter on 5.11.11 in the absence of the Applicant . He recorded that information against point 1 was supplied and with regard to points 2 and 3, he advised the Applicant to file an RTI application before SDM(PB) which according to the Applicant ought to have been transferred by the PIO cum SDM(RG) to the custodian of the information. The Appellate Authority also directed the SDM(RG) to transfer the RTI application to SDM(PB) within five days of receipt of his order and SDM(PB) to provide the information to the Applicant within fifteen days of receipt of the application. In response to the Appellate Authority's order, the RTI application was transferred to SDM(PB) vide letter dt.15.11.11.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that no information has been received till date against points 2 and 3.
3. The Commission on perusal of the submissions on record directs the PIO/SDM(PB) to provide the information against points 2 and 3 to the Appellant so as to reach the Appellant by 20.6.12 and also directs him to show cause as to why penalty u/s 20(1) should not be imposed upon him for not complying with the order of the Appellate Authority within the time limit prescribed by him. The PIO/SDM(PB) may submit his explanation to the Commission by 20.6.12.
4. The Commission also directs the PIO/SDM(RG) to show cause as to why the RTI application was not transferred to the concerned Public Authority i.e. PIO/SDM(PB) within five days of receipt of the RTI Application. The PIO/SDM(RG) may submit his explanation to the Commission by 20.6.12. CIC/AD/A/2012/000837 Background
5. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.21.9.11 with the PIO, Department of Revenue, GNCTD seeking information against three points including the total number of Kalandras u/s 145 received from P.S.Kirti Nagar along with their diary no., names of the parties etc. The PIO replied on 12.10.11 enclosing the point wise information. The Applicant filed an appeal dt.21.10.11 with the Appellate Authority (Copy not legible). The Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal vide order dt.8.11.11 after hearing the matter on 5.11.11. He recorded that from the records it is not clear as to whether the RTI application has been transferred to SDM(PB) or not and if transferred on which date. He directed the PIO/SDM(RG) to furnish the information to the Applicant as to whether the application was transferred to PIO/SDM(PB) and if the same was transferred the date thereof be furnished to the Applicant within fifteen days of receipt of his order. In response to the Appellate Authority's order, the PIO transferred the RTI application to PIO/SDM(PB) vide letter dt.15.11.11. On still not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.16.1.12 before CIC. Decision
6. The Commission on perusal of the submissions on record directs the PIO to provide the diary Nos. in respect of Kalandras and the date on which the proceedings were initiated etc. The information should reach the Appellant by 20.6.12.
7. The Commission also directs the PIO/SDM(PB) to provide the information against points 2 and 3 to the Appellant by 20.6.12 and to show cause as to why penalty u/s 20(1) should not be imposed upon him for not complying with the order of the Appellate Authority within the time limit prescribed by him ( Appellate Authority). The PIO/SDM(PB) to submit his explanation to the Commission by 20.6.12.
8. The Commission further directs the PIO/SDM(RG) to show cause as to why the RTI application was not transferred to the concerned Public Authority i.e. PIO/SDM(PB) within five days of receipt of the RTI Application, thereby obstructing the supply of information to the Appellant . The PIO/SDM(RG) may submit his explanation to the Commission by 20.6.12.
CIC/AD/A/2012/000838 Background
9. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.21.9.11 with the PIO, Department of Revenue, GNCTD. He wanted to know the period prescribed for sending the Kalandras u/s 145 Cr.P.C to the court of SDM, copies of any standing order/instructions/orders in this regard, the time period after which the case is started by the SDM after receiving the Kalandra, whether the proceedings are conducted on seniority basis or otherwise etc.. The PIO replied on 12.10.11 furnishing point wise information. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.21.10.11 with the Appellate Authority (Copy not legible). The Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal vide order dt.8.11.11 after hearing the matter on 5.11.11 in the absence of the Appellant. He recorded that available information has been furnished. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.16.1.12 before CIC. Decision
10. During the hearing, the Appellant brought to the attention of the Commission that the reply sent by the PIO was not signed by the PIO but by a junior level staff.
11. The Commission however noted that the PIO had under a covering letter passed on the information compiled by the dealing clerk and hence holds that the PIO who has sent the information (although compiled by a junior officer) is accountable for the quality of the information sent since it has been sent under his name through a covering letter.
12. Since available information has been provided as admitted to by the Appellant, the case is directed to be closed at the Commission's end.
CIC/AD/A/2012/000839 Background
13. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.1.8.11 with the PIO, Department of Revenue, GNCTD seeking information on action taken on his letter dt.14.9.10 against five points. The PIO replied on 8.9.11 furnishing point wise information. The Applicant then filed an appeal dt.23.9.11 with the Appellate Authority stating that the information sought by him has not been provided. The Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal vide order dt.24.10.11 after hearing the matter on 20.11.11. He recorded that during the hearing, the Applicant had stated that he wanted to know the name, designation and telephone number of the officer with whom the matter is pending and also the date since when it is pending with the said officer. The Appellate Authority therefore directed the PIO/SDM(RG) and SDM(PB) to furnish the information within fifteen days of receipt of his order. On not receiving any further response from the PIO, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.16.1.12 before CIC.
Decision
14. During the hearing, the Respondents submitted that in response to the order of the Appellate Authority, the PIO vide her letter dt.23.12.11 addressed to ADM(Vigilance) requested the Appellant to intimate the present status of proceedings if any in the case, directly to the Appellant. The PIO/ADM(West) accordingly furnished the requisite information to the Appellant vide letter dt.6.1.12 enclosing the reply from the Vigilance Branch stating that on the basis of records available, that the matter is under consideration of the Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD as the case relates to a complaint against a Gazetted officer. The Appellant, however, submitted that while he had received these letters, he is yet to receive the name, designation of the officer with whom the matter is pending in the vigilance.
15. The Commission noted that the Appellate Authority had already directed the PIO to disclose this information to the Appellant and accordingly directs the PIO/SDM(RG) to obtain the information u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act and to furnish the same to the Appellant so as to reach him by 20.6.12. CIC/AD/A/2012/000840 Background
16. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.24.8.11 with the PIO, Department of Revenue, GNCTD seeking information against five points (Copy not legible). On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.4.10.11 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information. The Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal vide order dt.24.10.11 after hearing the matter on 22.10.11. He recorded that during the hearing, the Applicant had stated that he has not been provided with the copy of the order whereby the case file pertaining to proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C in respect of property No.WHS 261 Kirti Nagar was transferred to SDM(PB). The Applicant further stated that he wanted to know the name and designation of the officer of P.S.Kirti Nagar to whom the order/letter dt.17.10.07 was given from the office of SDM(RG) and the date on which the said letter was delivered with copy of its receipt. The Appellate Authority accordingly directed the PIO/SDM(RG) and SDM(PB) to furnish the above information/documents to the Applicant within fifteen days of receipt of his order. On not receiving any further response from the PIO, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.16.1.12 before CIC.
Decision
17. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that the case file pertaining to WHS 261 Kirti Nagar has already been transferred to SDM(PB) and that no other information and file in respect of the above case matter is available at SDM(RG) and that this fact was conveyed to the Appellant vide letter dt.31.12.11. The Respondent added that the order of the Appellate Authority was received on 22.12.11 and information was supplied on 31.12.11.
18. It was noted by the Commission that the Appellate Authority had directed the PIO/SDM(PB) to provide complete information and that the same has not been furnished by the PIO. The Commission accordingly directs the PIO/SDM(PB) to provide the information to the Appellant so as to reach him by 20.6.12.
19. The SDM(PB) to also show cause as to why penalty u/s 20(1) should not be imposed upon him for not complying with the order of the Appellate Authority within the time limit prescribed by him(Appellate Authority). The PIO/SDM(PB) to submit his explanation to the Commission by 20.6.12.
19. The Commission further noted that the PIO/SDM(RG) has not responded to the RTI application.
Accordingly, the PIO/SDM(RG) is directed to show cause as to why penalty u/s 20(1) should not be imposed upon him for not furnishing the information within the mandatory period. The PIO/SDM(RG) to submit his explanation to the Commission by 20.6.12.
CIC/AD/A/2012/000841 Background
20. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.10.8.11 with the PIO, Department of Revenue, GNCTD seeking information against three points. He stated that he had filed an RTI application on 11.1.11 and that till date the same has not been responded to and in this context he wanted the photocopy of the file in which the RTI application was processed. He also wanted to know whether the Appellate Authority has taken any action on the PIO for not responding to the RTI application and if so, the copy of the same. The PIO replied on 1.9.11 furnishing point wise information. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.21.9.11 with the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal vide order dt.24.10.11 after hearing the matter on 22.10.11. He recorded that the information as sought by the Applicant was provided to him by the PIO except the order whereby the case was transferred to SDM(PB) from SDM(RG). The Appellate Authority directed the PIO/SDM(PB) to furnish a copy of the said order to the Applicant within fifteen days of receipt of his order. On not receiving any further response, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.16.1.12 before CIC.
Decision
21. It was noted by the Commission that the Appellate Authority had directed the PIO/SDM(PB) to provide complete information to the Appellant and that the same has not been furnished in violation of the AA's Order. The Commission therefore directs the PIO/SDM(PB) to provide the information to the Appellant so as to reach him by 20.6.12 and also to show cause as to why penalty u/s 20(1) should not be imposed upon him for not complying with the order of the Appellate Authority within the time limit prescribed by him (the Appellate Authority). The PIO/SDM(PB) to submit his explanation to the Commission by 20.6.12.
CIC/AD/A/2012/000842 Background
22. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.9.8.11 with the PIO, Department of Revenue, GNCTD seeking information against three points. He stated that he had filed an RTI application on 11.1.11 and sought the copy of said RTI application, its ID No., photocopy of relevant page of the register where the same was diarized, copy of the reply/information furnished to him by the PIO in response to his aforesaid RTI application and details of dispatch of reply viz. photocopy of the postal receipt vide which reply was dispatched to him. On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.21.9.11 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information.. The Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal vide order dt.24.10.11 after hearing the matter on 22.10.11, directing the PIO/SDM(RG) to furnish the information within fifteen days of receipt of his order. On not receiving any further response , the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.16.1.12 before CIC. Decision
23. It was noted by the Commission that Appellate Authority had directed the PIO/SDM(RG) to provide complete information and the same has not been furnished. The Commission accordingly directs the PIO/SDM(RG) to provide the information to the Appellant by 20.6.12 and also to show cause as to why penalty u/s 20(1) should not be imposed upon him for not complying with the order of the Appellate Authority within the time limit prescribed by him (the Appellate Authority). The PIO/SDM(RG) is directed to submit his written explanation to the Commission by 20.6.12. CIC/AD/A/2012/000843 Background
24. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.24.8.11 with the PIO, Police, GNCTD seeking information in respect of a representation that was sought by the SDM(RG) from the Head Constable on 17.10.07 in respect of desealing of Khasra No.261 WHS Kirti Nagar including the date on which the representation was received, name of the constable and his belt No. and copy of the letter by which the report was sought etc. The PIO replied on 19.9.11 furnishing point wise information. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.24.10.11 with the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal vide order dt.8.11.11 after hearing the matter on 5.11.11 in the absence of the Applicant. He recorded that the Applicant had filed the RTI application with the DCP(West) who vide letter dt.19.9.11 had transferred the said application to the PIO/SDM(RG). The Appellate Authority directed the PIO/SDM(RG) to furnish the information as per the available records within fifteen days of receipt of his order. On not receiving any further response, the Applicant filed his second appeal dt.16.1.12 before CIC.
Decision
25. During the hearing the Respondent submitted that all the case files related to the case u/s 145 Cr.P.C in the matter of State vs Omkar and others and Ramsaran and others were transferred to SDM(PB) vide letter dt.15.1.11 and therefore, a copy of the same letter was again provided to the Appellant on 23.12.12. in compliance with the order of the Appellate Authority.
25. The Commission accordingly directs the PIO/SDM(PB) to provide the information to the Appellant by 20.6.12.
26. The Commission further noted that the PIO/SDM(RG) has not responded to the RTI application. He is therefore directed to show cause as to why penalty u/s 20(1) should not be imposed upon him for not responding to the RTI application within the stipulated time period prescribed in the RTI Act. The PIO/SDM(RG) to submit his explanation to the Commission by 20.6.12.
27. The PIO/SDM(RG) is directed to forward a copy of this order to SDM(PB) for compliance.
28. The Commission under the powers vested in her u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act directs the Public Authority to compensate the Appellant for the financial detriment suffered by him in pursuing his RTI applications - first with the First Appellate Authority and then with the Commission in all the above mentioned cases - by paying him an amount of Rs. 4000/ only (Rupees Four thousand only). This amount may be paid by end June, 2012.
29. The appeals are disposed off with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Satya Pal R/o WZ492 Village Naraina New Delhi 110 028
2. The Public Information Officer Department of Revenue O/o SDM (Rajouri Garden) Govt. of NCT of Delhi Old Middle School Building Rampura Delhi 110 035
3. Officer in charge, NIC