Central Information Commission
Mr.Mr.Kanodia Omprakash vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 December, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001955/9138Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001955
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Kanodia Omprakash
3503, Gyan Shakti,
Sector -6, Plot-7,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
Respondent : Ms. Sushma Jain
Public Information Officer &
Dy. Secretary (Environment)
O/o PIO, Dept. Of Environment,
Government of NCT of Delhi
6th level, C-wing, Secretariat,
I.P Estate, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 16/04/2010
PIO replied : 11/05/2010
First appeal filed on : 18/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 01/07/2010
Second Appeal received on : 12/07/2010
S.No. Information sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
1 Details of office note and all the rules The PIO asked the Appellant to deposit Rs. 62/-
and documents in regard to the letter sent (for 31 pages at the rate of Rs 2/- per page).
by the chief minister to the garden
societies.
2 Details of the amount of money that was The parks and gardens societies had Rs 5 cr. on
there with the parks and gardens 08.01.2010 on which the Chief Minister's letter
societies at the time of the receipt of the
was received. Following are the expenditure which
Chief Minister's note, along with details was done after 31.03.2010.
of expenditure of money till the time the Salary Payment Rs. 3,60,756/-
information would be given. Office expenditure Rs 2, 48,647/-
Planning expenditure Rs 2,06,33,929/-
3 Whether any objection similar to No such proposal was received
P.M.B.K A.S.S was put on
correspondence
4 Certain actions of S.D.Singh Action is being taken to ensure that how this
amount will be used.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply by the PIO.
Page 1 of 3
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The First Appellate Authority directed the SPIO to furnish all information sought by the Appellant within
24 hours of the submission of the requisite fee.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Non receipt of complete information from the PIO even after the FAAs order. Inspection to be allowed
for queries 1 to 4.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing dated 31/08/2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Kanodia Omprakash;
Respondent: Ms. Sushma Jain, Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary (Environment); Dr. S. D.
Singh, Deemed PIO & CEO;
"The appellant wants to inspect the files relating to the information that he has sought. The PIO
will facilitate an inspection of the relevant records on 10 September 2010 from 11.00am onwards.
Decision dated 31/08/2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the
appellant on 10 September 2010 from 11.00AM onwards. He will give attested
photocopies of the records which the appellant wants free of cost upto 200 pages."
Facts leading to the hearing dated 06/12/2010:
The Commission received a letter dated 22/09/2010 from the Appellant alleging that during the inspection on 10/09/2010 some documents had not been produced before him. In view of this, the Commission decided to schedule a hearing in this matter on 06/12/2010 at 11:00 a.m. to decide whether there has been non-compliance of the order of the Commission. The Commission directed the PIO & Dy. Secretary Mrs. Sushma Jain and the Appellant to appear before the Commission on 06/12/2010 at 11:00 a.m. Relevant facts emerging during the hearing dated 06/12/2010:
Appellant: Mr. Omprakash Kanodia Respondent: Mr. S.D. Singh, Deemed PIO & CEO (DPCC) and Mr. L.R. Singh, APIO;
Mr. S.D. Singh has stated that the inspection had been facilitated to the Appellant on 10/09/2010 as per the Commission's order and attested copies of documents were also provided to the Appellant as per his demand. Mr. Singh has also stated that the issue raising by the Appellant is of a letter dated 17/07/2010 from the Chief Minister and at the time of inspection on 10/09/2010 there was no file notings related to the letter. However, after taking action on the abovesaid letter the information had been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 15/10/2010.
The Appellant has inspected the files but he has a doubt that all the papers which are up-to-date are not entered in the file. The appellant also states that he was shown the details of only one bank whereas he believes that the society has more than one bank account. The Respondent states that the society has only one bank account. To ensure that the Appellant has seen the last communication/notings in the files the Commission directs that the PIO facilitate one more inspection of the said records by the Appellant.Page 2 of 3
Adjunct Decision:
The PIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 10 December 2010 at 12.00 noon at the office of the PIO. The Appellant will identify the last page on the file and the PIO will give an attested photocopy of the last page on the file with a statement that this is the last page on the file as on 10 December 2010 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 06 December 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (VN) Page 3 of 3