Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

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/2021/617211

 A. K. Malik                                            .....अपीलकताग /Appellant

                                    VERSUS/बनाम

 Public Information Officer Under RTI,
 Office of the Director, Delhi Fire Service-HQ
 (Government of NCT of Delhi),
 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

 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          :   18.02.2021
  CPIO replied on                   :   Not on record
  First appeal filed on             :   24.03.2021
  First Appellate Authority order   :   Not on record
  Second Appeal received at CIC     :   12.05.2021
  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 4
  Information sought

:

The Appellant sought following information:
Etc. • Dissatisfied with no response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 24.03.2021.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Page 2 of 4
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 instant RTI Application, has not been furnished to him in the instant matter. He further requested the Commission that complete information be furnished to him.
Upon Commission's instance, Appellant stated that no information has been furnished to him in the instant matter.
PIO submitted that he would furnish a fresh reply in the instant matter.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission expresses 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 present PIO was unable to provide the details in respect of the same, therefore Commission directs then PIO through the present PIO to send his/her written submissions to justify as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the 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.
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, directs the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a fresh point-wise reply, with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 10 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.
Page 3 of 4
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) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Copy to be served through present PIO to:
Then PIO, Office of the Director, Delhi Fire Service-HQ (Government of NCT of Delhi), Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
--(For taking note of the adverse remarks of the Commission and complying with the directions)--
Page 4 of 4