Central Information Commission
J. S. Parcha vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 8 May, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/ADDDM/C/2017/149236
Shri J S Parcha ... अपीलकताग/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, SDM (HQ), Darya Ganj, New Delhi
Through: Sh. D P Arora-SDM(HQ)/PIO;
Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma-Naib Tehsildar ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 01.05.2019
Date of Decision : 01.05.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.05.2017
PIO replied on : Nil
First Appeal filed on : 10.06.2017
First Appellate Order on : Nil
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 15.07.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 08.05.2017, seeking information regarding Valmiki Samaj Sudhar Samiti, 2356 Gali Ravidas, Bazar Sitaram, Delhi-110006.
1. How could the Samiti be registered while a society with the same name had already been registered with the address at 2355 Gali Ravidas, Bazar Sitaram, Delhi-110006.
2. If there was any political pressure behind doing so?
3. List of office bearers of the above said society.
4. Intimate the time and date when I can inspect the file.
Having received no reply from the PIO, applicant filed First Appeal dated 10.06.2017 which was not adjudicated therefore he filed the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Both parties are present for hearing. It has been brought to the notice of the Commission, during the course of hearing that hearing of the First Appeal took place and an order dated 27.07.2017 passed by the FAA has been placed on record. Perusal of the FAA's order further reveals that PIO's response dated 06.07.2017 was found unsatisfactory by the FAA and the FAA had decided Page 1 of 3 PIO/SDM(HQ) to furnish response within 20 days. Records indicate that there has been no compliance of the FAA's order.
Respondent states that the complete address and registration number etc. of the subsequent Samity/Society had not been provided by the complainant and without details of the second (subsequent) society, no information could be furnished. It appears that the then PIO had requested the applicant to visit the office to inspect the records or provide the complete particulars. Respondent has produced a letter dated 18.04.2019 whereby some of the queries have been answered but in response to query number 2 of the RTI application, the response of Sh. D P Arora, the PIO, Registrar of Co operative Societies, is found wholly incorrect in as much as the provision of RTI Act has been wrongly interpreted by the PIO while denying information against query number 2.
Decision In the light of the plea of the complainant, the Commission finds it expedient and in the interest of justice that the instant complaint be converted into an Appeal. Deliberations during hearing reveal that the then PIO failed to adhere to the specific directions of the FAA, thereby leading to violation of the FAA's orders. Moreover, even the letter dated 18.04.2019 furnished by the current PIO is found deficient, since the PIO has responded wrongly by incorrect interpretation of the RTI Act. The PIO's response dated 18.04.2019, against query number 2 is thus set aside. During the course of hearing, the respondent states that they are carrying the relevant files, which can be provided for inspection.
In the given circumstances, the Commission directs the respondent to provide the available documents/files to the appellant to carry out inspection of the complete records of the case.
The appellant has submitted a written note, after inspection of the records, stating that has inspected the records and has requested the respondent to provide copies of documents which he has inspected. Respondent is directed to provide copies of such documents, as identified by the appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order. Compliance report in this respect should reach the Commission by 27.05.2019, failing which appropriate action be initiated by the Registry.
The case is thus disposed off with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Page 2 of 3 Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 3 of 3