Central Information Commission
Mr.R P Parasher vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 March, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2012/000540
Date of Hearing : March 12, 2012
Date of Decision : March 12, 2012
Parties:
Appellant
Dr. R.P. Parasher
C107, Yadav Colony
Samaypur
Delhi 110 042
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
Directorate of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy
Government of NCT of Delhi
Tibbia College Complex
Karol Bagh
New Delhi 110 005
Represented by: Dr. Y.D. Sharma, Dy. Director
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/000540
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication (dated 05.09.2011) with the PIO, Dte. of Indian Systems of Medicines and Homeopathy, Delhi seeking information against 14 items all related to elections of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad (DBCP)2011. The PIO on 27.09.2011 gave pointwise reply to the Applicant. The Applicant, being dissatisfied with the PIO's reply in respect of item nos. 6, 7 & 13 only, filed his first appeal before the Appellate Authority on 14.11.2011. The Appellate Authority through his order dated 30.11.2011 furnished required clarification to the Appellant. The Appellant, however, still being aggrieved with the clarification/decision of the Appellate Authority, filed the present petition (dated 15.12.2011) before the Commission complaining that the Respondents are not providing the required information to him.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant's RTIqueries (i.e. item nos. 6, 7 & 13) brought up in his first appeal before the Appellate Authority were discussed as given below:
Item No. 6:
3. The Appellant's query in this item was: "Whether there is a provision of issuing duplicate ballot papers to the electors? Whether the electors were informed of this provision through a public notice at any stage during the lection process?" The Respondents stated that there is no such provision in the DBCP Election Rules and that they have already conveyed the relevant provision i.e. Rule 16 of DBCP Election Rule to the Appellant vide their reply dated 27.09.2011, beyond which they have nothing to share in their record corresponding to the present query of the Appellant.
In view of the above, the PIO is directed to formally communicate to the Appellant that they do not hold anything on record except what they have already communicated to him corresponding to his present query. Time - within 1 week of receipt of this order.
Item No. 7 & 13:
4. Here the Appellant had enquired about total nos. of ballot papers dispatched and total nos. of ADs received against them. During the hearing, the Appellant stated that around 40% of ballot papers had not reached the voters. He, therefore, insisted that he be provided with a list comprising the total nos. of ballot papers against which the Respondents have not received the ADs from the postal authority. The Respondents stated that they do not maintain such list and that compiling the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. They, however, when asked, told the Commission that they had dispatched around 5483 ballot papers, but had received ADs only against 3198 ballot papers. The Respondents also pointed out that as per the provisions of the DBCP Election Rule the records related to the election are kept in sealed cover for six months period after which the same can be destroyed. The Appellant pointed out that six month period is over in the present case and hence the information may be supplied to him which the Respondents also acknowledged.
5. In view of the fact that the information the Appellant here wants to obtain is voluminous in nature and is not readily available with the Respondents, it is considered fit to allow the Appellant to inspect all records including ADs available with the Respondents so that he could himself verify the exact numbers of ballot papers dispatched and exact numbers of ADs received against them and then compile the list he wants to obtain.
6. It is accordingly directed that the PIO, on a day, time and place to be identified for the purpose and intimated to the Appellant in advance, shall allow the Appellant to inspect complete records relating to the present queries. Following the inspection, the Appellant shall be entitled to receive attested copies of documents, which he might select from the inspected records. In order to facilitate compilation of information by the Appellant, the PIO to provide a complete list of all those voters to whom the ballot papers were sent. This would help the Appellant compile information about the numbers who have not signed on the ADs, the numbers who have sent ADs after signing them and the numbers who have not replied at all after receiving the ballot papers.
7. With respect to action taken in respect of cases where the ballot papers have not been received, the Respondent to categorically inform the Appellant that apart from the communication sent to the Postal authorities and the reply from them stating that all the ballot papers have been received by voters, copies of which have already been furnished to the Appellant, no further action has been taken in the matter by the Public Authority.
8. All information to be provided by 16.04.2012.
9. Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Dr. R.P. Parasher C107, Yadav Colony Samaypur Delhi 110 042
2. The Appellate Authority Directorate of Indian Systems of Medicines and Homeopathy Government of NCT of Delhi Tibbia College Complex Karol Bagh New Delhi 110 005
3. The Public Information Officer Office of the Returning Officer DBCP Election Directorate of Indian Systems of Medicines and Homeopathy Government of NCT of Delhi Tibbia College Complex Karol Bagh New Delhi 110 005
4. Officer in charge, NIC Note: In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO's reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of the Commission's decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant may indicate, what information has not been provided.