Central Information Commission
Mr. Karamvir Singh Rana vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi, Revenue ... on 6 January, 2009
/CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/01007/SG/0893
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01007/
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Karamvir Singh Rana,
General Secretary,
Yuva Chetna Samaj Sudhar Sangthan,
Khera Kalan,
New Delhi - 110082.
Respondent 1 : Mr. Krishan Kumar,
Addl. District Magistrate (NW) & PIO, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Revenue Department, Kanjhawala, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 05/03/2007 PIO replied : 26/04/2007 First appeal filed on : 15/05/2007 First Appellate Authority order : 05/06/2007 Second Appeal filed on : 16/05/2008
The appellant had asked in RTI application regarding to their previous applied RTI application and what action had taken about the said letters.
Detail of required information.
The appellant had asked in their RTI application that, provide the certified copies of the said matter, and what action had been taken by the concerned department related to appellant RTI application those had been submitted by our organization, date wise.
The PIO replied.
"In the appellant's application had mentioned date and serial no. only, while had not mention the complete information quires therefore, getting the complete reply from the office of the PIO, the appellant will have mention related matter in the RTI application, after that information can be provided to the appellant.
The First Appellate Authority Ordered:-
"The appellant wanted information of the action taken and certified copies thereof of the 33 letters filed by him to the different offices of the agencies during the period of 07/03/2001 to 13/12/2006 relating to the consolidation in village Khera Kalan. The appellant was informed in the reply given on 26/04/2007 that details of information wanted are not indicated in the letters dated in different dates in the ID application. During the course of appeal proceedings, it transpired that the scheme of consolidation, investigation of the irregularities, action taken thereof and the remedial matters if any. The appellant suggested to provide a questionnaire relating to these areas for better comprehension so that he wanted and purposefully information can be given. Let it be given by the appellant to the SDM (Narela) from the office of which the necessary replies as per the questionnaires and submitted to the PIO by 12/06/2007 for onward transmission to the appellant with a copy of this Court."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Karamvir Singh Rana Respondent: Absent It appears from the deposition of the appellant that no information has been provided to the appellant though he had tried to reduce the queries as suggested by the First Appellate authority.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 25 January, 2009. The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law. It also appears that the First appellate authority's orders have not been implemented. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the 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. He has 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 has clearly ordered the information to be given. .
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.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 30 January, 2009. If the PIO wishes to contend that some other officer / officers are responsible for the delay since he has sought their assistance under Section5(4) he will fill in the time line in the attached format and ask such other officer / officers to be present with their explanations.
.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 6th January, 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)