Central Information Commission
Mr. Raj Bahadur vs O/O Asst. Commissioner, Nw District, ... on 30 December, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003032/6159
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003032
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Raj Bahadur,
S/o Mr Tinku Ram,
No. 53 Ext 2C,
Nangloi, Delhi- 110041.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Government of NCT of Delhi O/o Asst. Commissioner, NW District, Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs, CSC, CC Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi - 110088 RTI application filed on : 01/09/2009 PIO replied : No reply.
First appeal filed on : 12/10/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 30/10/2009 Second Appeal received on : 02/12/2009
Information Sought (with reference to an application for renewal of BPL Ration Card - No 25580061, dated 06/08/2009 submitted by the Appellant- enclosed. The application was rejected on the grounds of incorrect address).
a) Action taken report on the complaint filed by the Appellant dated 06/08/2009. The name and designation of officials who handled the complain.
b) Name and designation of officials who should have acted on the complain.
c) The likely action (timeframe included) that can be taken against these officials for dereliction of duty and harassment.
d) The time frame when action will be taken on the Appellant's application.
e) The list of all applications received by the department post the receipt of Appellant's complain letter.
f) Copy of receipt given out on receiving the complains.
g) Whether action has been taken on any application which was submitted after the Appellant's complain.
h) Whether any enquiry has been made about the implementation of complaints that have been registered after the submission of Appellant's complaint.
Reply of PIO No reply provided by the PIO.
Page 1 of 3First Appeal:
No information provided by the PIO. Order of the FAA:
FAA directed the PIO (AC/NW), to 'look into the matter and settle the grievance of the Appellant within 20 days.' Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non compliance of FAA's order. The Appellant had not been informed of any action taken by the PIO despite FAA's order.
Decision:
The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. The Appellant filed a RTI application dated 01/09/2009 to which he did not receive a reply and he filed a First Appeal on 12/10/2009. The First Appeal was heard on 23/10/2009 and an order was passed by the First Appellate Authority on 30/10/2009. The First Appellate Authority clearly directed the PIO/AC (NW) to look into the matter and settle the grievance of the Appellant within 20 days. Information was not provided to the Appellant till the filing of the Second Appeal on 02/12/2009.
The information sought by the Appellant falls within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and no exemption can be claimed to refuse disclosure by the PIO. If the information would not have been available with the PIO or if any exemption under Section 8(1) or 9 applied in the present case, the First Appellate Authority would have made an observation in that respect. However, no such observation has been made.
The Commission directs the PIO & AC (NW) to provide the complete information point- wise to the Appellant before 20 January 2010.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO/AC (NW) will provide the complete information to the Appellant before 20 January 2010.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO/AC (NW) is guilty of not furnishing the complete information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7. He further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority had clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that his actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A show cause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed to give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 25 January 2010 at 3.30 p.m. along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He is further directed to submit proof of sending the information to the Appellant to the Commission on 25 January 2010.Page 2 of 3
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant and for not complying with the order of the First Appellate Authority, the PIO/AC(NW) is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing on 25 January 2010 and direct them to appear before the Commission on 25 January 2010 along with him.
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 30 December 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RR) Page 3 of 3