Central Information Commission
Gurvinder Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 11 July, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/DDATY/A/2021/608173
Gurvinder Singh .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Deputy Director-(LSB-Rohini),
Delhi Development Authority,
Land Sales Branch-Rohini,
Room No.-C-1/311, C-Block,
3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan, I.N.A. Colony,
New Delhi-110023.
2. Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Assistant Director-(RTI Section),
Delhi Development Authority,
RTI Implementation & Coordination Branch,
C-Block, 3rd Floor, Vikas Sadan,
I.N.A. Colony, New Delhi-110023.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.11.2020
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 31.12.2020
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
Second Appeal received at CIC : 09.03.2021
Date of Hearing : 11.07.2022
Date of Decision : 11.07.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 3
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
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 in person Respondent: Not present despite notice.
The appellant reiterated the factual matrix of his case and stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO.
Decision At the outset, the Commission expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the then PIO in not having provided reply on the RTI Application within time period stipulated under the RTI Act as well as for non-appearance for the hearing despite notice. Commission was unable to procure the name of the then PIO, therefore Commission directs then PIO through the Nodal PIO (RTI) to send his written submissions to justify as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the gross violation of its provisions. In doing so, if any other persons are also responsible for the omission, the then PIO shall serve a copy of this order on such other persons under intimation to the Commission and ensure that written submissions of all such concerned persons are sent to the Commission. The said written submission of then PIO along Page 2 of 3 with submissions of other concerned persons, if any, should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Nodal PIO (RTI) will ensure service of this order to then erring PIO at his present place of posting.
Now, Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing directs the present PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a fresh point wise reply to the appellant, free of cost via speed 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. Further, PIO must make sure that any third-party information or any other information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 shall not be disclosed to the appellant while providing the said reply.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 3