Central Information Commission
Sanjana Gahlot vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 16 August, 2021
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा /Second Appeal No.: CIC/ADDDM/A/2019/161802
Sanjana Gahlot .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. Public Information Officer,
SDM (Election), District West,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
O/o District Election Officer (W),
Shivaji Place, Raja Garden, New Delhi-110027.
... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29.05.2019
CPIO replied on : 17.06.2019
First appeal filed on : 17.07.2019
First Appellate Authority order : 24.10.2019
Second Appeal received at CIC : 20.12.2019
Date of Hearing : 16.08.2021
Date of Decision : 16.08.2021
सूचनाआयु : ी हीरालाल साम रया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information regarding Lok Sabha Election (2019) for the (06), west Delhi Parliamentary Constituencies of Delhi. The desired information is as under:
1. Copy of Ballot Paper of the Electronic Voting Machine.
2. Copy of Postal Ballot Paper.
3. Copy of list of contesting candidates, FORM-7A (Conduct of Election rules, 1961).Page 1 of 4
4. Copy of Return of Election, FORM-21E, (Conduct of Election of Rules,1961).
PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 17.06.2019, as under:
Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 17.07.2019.
The FAA, vide order dated 24.10.2019, held as under:Page 2 of 4
Written submissions have been received from PIO, SDM (Election), District West vide letter dated 12.08.2021, as under:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: present on phone, represented by Mr. Hargyan Singh Gahlot, Advocate.
Respondent: Shri V.K. Tyagi, SDM (West-Election) & PIO Rep. of Appellant stated that they are not satisfied with the reply of the PIO. He further stated that PIO has denied the information sought at paras 1 & 2 blatantly under Represent of People Act, 1950 without quoting any relevant provisions. He further argued that there is no such provision wherein said information sought can be denied.
PIO submitted that point wise information was provided to the Appellant on 17.06.2019. He further affirmed that he would comply with the directions of the Commission, if any, in the instant matter.
Decision:
Page 3 of 4
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that reply provided by the PIO on paras 1 & 2 of the instant RTI Application was vague. Therefore, Commission directs the PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised, detailed and specific reply to the Appellant, free of cost, via speed/registered 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.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल साम रया) Information Commissioner (सू चना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 4