Central Information Commission
Mr.Deepak Tomar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 18 October, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002447/9805
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002447
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr.Deepak Tomar
F-187A, GTB Enclave,
Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.
Respondent : Dr. J. S. Purty
Public Information Officer & Chief Medical Officer Municipal Corporation of Delhi Mrs. G. L. M. Hospital, Ajmeri Gate, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 12/05/2010
PIO replied : 12/06/2010
First appeal filed on : 23/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 04/08/2010
Second Appeal received on : 03/09/2010
Hearing Held on : 18/10/2010
Sr. Information Sought Reply of PIO
1. Whether the Contacting Agency M/S Prehari M/S Prehari protection System has deposited
Protection System Pvt. Ltd. has made an agreement security in accordance to the terms and condition
and also furnished the 10% security deposit of the to the tender.
total cost of the contract for two years in the shape of FDR in favour of Commissioner, MCD, Delhi, if yes, copy of the same may please be provided.
2. Whether M/S Prehari Protection System Pvt. Ltd. is M/S Prehari Protection Systems Pvt Ltd. has been registered with Labour Deptt. under Contract Labour registered with labour department, EPF & under (R&A) Act 1970 and Delhi Works Contract Act, if ESI. yes, copy of the same may be provided. As regard to providing copy of the document by applicants, the sought information pertaining to third party. Notice was issues to third party and third party object to disclosing information to the applicant.
It is considered that document had by him which pertain to third party in mutual trust & thus can not be disclosed to applicant as it may cause harm to the interest of the third party. Moreover no public interest will be served by disclosing information to the applicant. Thus this application for information is being rejected tinder section clause no II of RTI Act.
2005.
3. Whether M/S Prehari Protection System Pvt. Ltd. is -As above-
Page 1 of 3registered with E.P.F. and E.S. I.C. authorities if yes, copy of the same may be provided.
4. Whether it is fact that the contracting agency has not This information is no more concern with this employed any person below the age of 18 years and hospital. However clear guidelines and terms & above the age of 55 years. Besides this whether the conditions of the contract are circulated to all manpower so engaged by the agency is trained for institutions heads of health department, MCD from providing security services and Fire Fighting Services, where the order to the approved firm may be If yes, copies of their training certificates may please delivered. be furnished
5. Whether it is fact that the contracting agency have not As in S.No.4 deploy Ex-servicemen not above the age of 55 years, copies of their Discharge Books may please be furnished along with the list of total Numbers of Ex- servicemen.
6. Copies of proof of age i.e. educational qualifications As in S.No.4 certificate of matriculation in respect of civilian guards/supervisor guards to be deployed in your Hospital may also are furnished.
7. Copy of undertaking with regard to Police Verification As in S.No.4 of security staff to be deployed may please be furnished.
8. Whether the contractor has submitted the Medical As in No.4 Fitness Certificate in respect of security personnel to be deployed in your Hospital, if yes, copies of thereof may please be submitted.
9. Whether the contractor is having round the clock As in S.No.4 control room services, to deal with emergent situation in Delhi, if yes, complete address along with the name of persons in the Quick Reaction Team may please be provided.
10 The contacting agency is having its own As in S.No.4 establishment/training institute to providing training aids, if yes, the proof thereof may please be furnished. Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply given by the PIO on the plea that the sought information pertaining to third party and no public interest will be served by disclosing information to the applicant.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"In the appeal he was informed that no private security from M/s. Prehari Protection System is engaged in this hospital during that period.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed."
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Dr. J. S. Purty, Public Information Officer & Chief Medical Officer The respondent has not given information on query-2 to 10 without giving any reasons to show that the information is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority's (FAA) order states that M/s Prehari Protection System is not engaged by the Public Authority whereas the earlier Page 2 of 3 PIO has admitted that this agency has been given a contract! The FAA's order does not seem to have been given after any appropriate thought.
The respondent states that the person responsible for not providing the information on query 2 to 10 was the then PIO Dr. N. P. Singh.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The present PIO Dr. J. S. Purty is directed to provide the information on query 2 to 10 to the appellant before 30 October 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the then PIO Dr. N. P. Singh within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the then 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 give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
The then PIO Dr. N. P. Singh will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 08 December 2010 at 4.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
It also appears that they persistently refused to give the information inspite of repeated reminders to the respondent hence the Commission is also considering recommending disciplinary actions under Section 20(2) against them.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 18 October 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AK) CC:
To, The then PIO Dr. N. P. Singh through Dr. J. S. Purty PIO & CMO;Page 3 of 3