Central Information Commission
Mr. Gian Chand vs O/O The Addl. District Magistrate on 27 November, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002571/5721
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002571
Appellant : Mr. Gian Chand
General Secretary Sant Kripal Singh
Public Trust, Plot 608-609, G.T.
Road Alipur, (Near BDO Office),
Delhi-110036
Respondent : Mr. Neeraj Bharti
Public Information Officer & ADM O/o the Addl. District Magistrate Land Acquisition Collector, North West District, Kanjhawala, Delhi-110081 RTI application filed on : 02/06/2009 PIO replied : 13/08/2009 First Appeal filed on : 17/07/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 17/08/2009 Second Appeal Received on : 13/10/2009 Notice of Hearing Sent on : 24/10/2009 Hearing Held on : 27/11/2009 Appellant sought information regarding the name and designation of the officers who dealt with the case of Sant Kirpal Singh Trust, circumstances under which necessary recommendation had not been made, proceeding dates of the case and how much time will be indeed to grant the recommendation for the required certificate and name of FAA and Second Appellate Authority.
Sl. Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. Name and designation of the officials who The PIO dealt Appellant's case after receiving the are dealing with this case. file pertaining to Appellant/'s case from SDM (Narela) vide diary dated 30/05/2008. The case was put up before DC(NW) on 20/01/2009 after obtaining attestation and signature in original on the photocopies of application and documents submitted by the Appellant. The Dy. Commissioner had further enquired abut the authorities concerned who issue such certificate and guidelines from the General Administration Deptt.(GAD), GNCT of Delhi Accordingly, information was sought vide letter dated. Though officially no reply had been received so far but as per the copy of letter dated 26/03/2009 issued by GAD submitted by the Appellant the General Administration Deptt.(GAD), GNCT of Delhi neither issue certificate of antecedent of an organization nor have any guidelines on the above subject and has advised to deal with the matter in consultation with Central Govt.Deptt. /MEA. The file is being currently dealt by the Respondent (ADM, NW) and same is now under submission to District Collector Dy.
Commissioner for consideration of issue of the said certificate (file submitted on 13/08/2009)
2. Circumstances under which necessary The circumstance under which necessary recommendation has not been granted. recommendation has not been issued is already mentioned as above.
3. Proceeding dates of this case may be The proceeding dates are given in Para 1 above furnish. However, Appellant may obtain the noting of the file if desired so.
4. How much time will be needed to grant the No specific time period can be motioned as the case recommendation for the required requires interpretation of provisions of law./rules certificate? and the other merits of the case.
5. Complete particulars of the FAA and Name and Address of FAA and Second Appellate Second Appellate Authority may be Authority mentioned by the Appellant. intimated.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Information not supplied. Order of the First Appellate Authority:
FAA stated that PIO had supplied the information to the Appellant vide letter dated 13/08/2009, Appellant could get the copy of notings, if so desired after payment of requisite fee @ Rs. 2/- per page. PIO was directed to furnish the Photocopies of the relevant note sheets to the Appellant within ten days of the deposit of the requisite fee by the Appellant.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Appellant requested for passing order for necessary recommendation of his Application under reference and might not be further delayed for the social activities for needy person.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Gian Chand;
Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Bharti, Public Information Officer & ADM;
The Appellant has sought a recommendation for getting an antecedent certificate for applying for FCRA permission from MHA. From the discussion with the PIO it appears that there has been considerable delay and no definite outcome has been obtained so far despite the Respondent having recommended the case. The Commission directs the PIO to ensure that the certificate is either issued or rejected on merits and the Appellant is informed of this before 20 December 2009.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information directed above to the Appellant before 20 December 2009.
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 27 November 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)