Central Information Commission
Mr. Harpal Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 November, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110 066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2007/00771/SG/0264
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00771/
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Harpal Singh,
S/o Sh. Behari Lal,
Village Shahbad Mohd. Pur
New Delhi.
Respondent 1 : Mr. K.K. Dahiya,
ADM (SW) & Public Information Officer under RTI Act 2005 Govt. of NCT of Delhi, O/o. the Addl. Distt. Magistrate (SW), Old Terminal Tax Buld., Kapashera, New Delhi.
Respondent 2 : Deputy Commissioner (SW), First Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, O/o. the Addl. Distt. Magistrate (SW), Old Terminal Tax Buld., Kapashera, New Delhi. RTI filed on : 12/12/2006 PIO replied : 06/02/2007 First appeal filed on : 12/02/2007 First Appellate Authority order : 09/04/2007 Second Appeal filed on : 01/06/2007 S.No Information Sought PIO's Reply The First Appellate Authority ordered 1. The Appellant had filed an It is submitted As regard the information sought in Para-I application regarding that the of the appeal, it is informed that the SLP information on the Legal information, was filed in the main case. However, Advisor Opinion against RFA which you have information not available in the office No. 63/96 decided on 11-02-98 requested has whether the SLP in the matter of Harpal by the Honorable High Court been obtained Singh Vs Union of India was filed or not. Delhi. Appellant & others v/s from Land The information of cases in Supreme No. ID, there Civil Appeal is to Acquisition Court of India is available on Website of be filed in the Supreme Court Branch of Supreme Court of India; therefore the with in relating to Award District South- Applicant is advised to obtain the said No.10/86-87 Village Shahbad, West. Copy information from public site. Mahipalpur, Delhi. And AC. enclosed. As regard the information sought in Para- No. 1235/93 decided 01-09-95 II of the appeal, it is to inform you that a by Sh. K.K. Dahiya. Main case cheque bearing No. 425481 dated 31-03- Balak Ram v/s Union of India. 2000 amounting Rs. 5000(five thousand only) was issued to the Central Agency Section, Supreme Court of India. However, the same was issued for filing SLP in the matter of Balak Ram of village SBM pur and Suraj Mal of Village Mahipalpur. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant : Mr. Harpal Singh, Respondent : Absent
The respondent is dissatisfied with the reply since what he is seeking is whether an SLP was filed against him in RFA no. 63/1996, which was decided by the High Court with the title, ' Harpalsingh vs. Union of India.' The PIO has refused to answer this and the First appellate authority is asking him to look at the website. This is untenable, since the department must know whether it has filed a SLP in the Supreme Court in this matter. Appellants are not expected to go about looking at websites and most appellants do not even have access to websites.
The appellant Mr. Harpal Singh is 82 years old and it is completely inappropriate for the PIO to refuse to answer his simple query.
Decision :
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will provide information to the appellant clearly on the following:
Whether a SLP has been filed in RFA no. 63/1996, which was decided by the High Court with the title, ' Harpalsingh vs. Union of India.'. If it has been filed, the PIO will provide the number to him. If it has not been filed, the PIO will state this. This information will be provided to the appellant before 10 December, 2008.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
It also appears that the First appellate authority's orders have not been implemented. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1) .
A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed to present himself before the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him. He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 20 December, 2008. He will also send the evidence of having supplied the information to the appellant. If the PIO wishes to contend that some other officer / officers are responsible for the delay since he has sought their assistance under Section5(4) he will fill in the time line in the attached format and ask such other officer / officers to be present with their explanations.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 19th November 08.