Central Information Commission
Ms.Shanti Devi vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 February, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
File No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003372SA
(Shanti Devi Vs. Revenue Dept., GNCTD)
Appellant : Shanti Devi
Respondent : Revenue Dept., GNCTD
Date of hearing : 7.2.2014
Date of decision : 7.2.2014
Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)
Referred Sections : Sections 3, 19(3), 20 of the
RTI Act
Result : Appeal allowed / disposed of
FACTS
Heard today dated 7.2.14. Appellant not present. Public Authority is represented by Shri Sameer Sharma, Tehsildar (Mehrauli)
2. The para 4 of the Commission's decision of even No. dated 15.1.14 is reproduced below:
4. The Commission is constrained to issue show cause notice as to why maximum penalty cannot be imposed against the then PIO, Shri Rajiv Singh who is apparently responsible for the delay from 17.2.12 to 31.10.12 and the O/o SDM(HK) which is responsible for the delay from 1.11.12 to till date. SDM(HK) is hereby directed to send Show cause notice to the then PIO, get the explanation, submit that explanation along with SDM(HK)'s explanation for the delay to the Commission by 3.2.14. The Commission provides Shri Rajiv Singh an opportunity to be present for the hearing at 12.40 pm on 3rd February 2014 and explain his version of reasons for delay. The Commission also directs SDM(HK) to depute an officer besides APIO who will be responsible in dealing with these issues to furnish proper information and also explain why maximum penalty cannot be imposed against the office which means head of the office who is in charge of overall functioning of office for the delay at the above date and time.
3. During the hearing, the Respondent officer produced before the Commission, the reply dt.6.2.14 of Shri Rajeev Singh, SDM(Mehrauli) in which he states that he had joined as SDM(Hauz Khas) w.e.f 24.8.2012 and relieved from the post of SDM(Hauz Khas) on 31.10.12 and that the RTI as well as order of FAA were never brought to his notice and he came to know about it only after receipt of letter dated 10.1.14 of SDM(Hauz Khas). Hence the delay providing certificate to the Appellant as well as furnishing of reply of the RTI application should not be attributed to him. He, then explained in his letter the efforts made by his office to contact the Appellant and requested the Commission to advise the Appellant to contact SDM(Hauz Khas) so that certificate could be issued.
4. The Commission also received a reply dt.6.2.14 from Shri S.K.Gupta, SDM(Hauz Khas) in which he states that as per computer records, the Appellant filed an application for issuance of SC certificate on 17.6.2011 and the same was shown as 'PENDING' till January 2014. He added that the application papers in the present case were never handed over to present Sub Division Hauz Khas by the then SDM upon bifurcation of the Sub Divisions. He further added that the matter was never brought to his knowledge either by the subordinate staff or by the Appellant. Immediately after the matter came to his notice, he had directed the staff to trace out the application which could not be located despite best possible efforts and accordingly the present Tehsildar (Hauz Khas) rejected the pending application in soft ware for want of documents on 6.1.2014. He requested the Commission to direct the Appellant to file the application afresh which will be taken up on priority and the certificate shall be issued as per law.
5. During the hearing, Shri Sameer Sharma submitted that Shri Rajeev Singh was not the PIO at the time Appellate Authority had passed the order and it was Shri Rajeev Shukla who is now posted as OSD to CM, Govt. of Uttarakhand. The Commission noted that Shri Ashok Kumar, APIO who was present during the hearing on 15.1.14 gave a wrong information. However, this fact was never brought to the notice of the Commission by the Respondents from the time they received the Commission's order till today. The Commission directs the Respondent Officers to be accurate and prompt with reference to names of the persons they furnish to the Commission and ensure that such mistakes are not committed in future
6. The Commission directs Shri Rajeev Shukla, the then PIO/SDM(Hauz Khas) to show cause as to why penalty u/s 20 should not be imposed upon him for not complying with the order of the Appellate Authority. He is directed to submit his written explanation so as to reach the Commission within two months of receipt of this order. The present PIO/SDM(Mehrauli) is directed to forward a copy of this order within five days to Shri Rajeev Shukla for compliance.
7. As requested by Shri Rajeev Singh, SDM(Mehrauli), the Commission advises the Appellant to visit the office of SDM(Hauz Khas) along with the requisite documents so that the certificate could be issued.
8. The appeal is disposed with the above direction. Penalty proceedings to continue.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Tarun Kumar) Additional Registrar Address of parties
1. The CPIO O/o Sub Divisional Magistrate Mehrauli Govt. of NCT of Delhi Old Tehsil Building Mehrauli New Delhi 110 030
2. The CPIO O/o Sub Divisional Magistrate Hauz Khas Govt. of NCT of Delhi O/o Dy. Commissioner (South) M.B.Road Saket New Delhi
3. Mrs. Shanti Devi S85/H15, Red Tomb Camp Panchsheel Park New Delhi 110 017