Central Information Commission
Mr. Mayank Gilani 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/2010/002849/10321
Appeal No.CIC/SG/A/2010/002849
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Mayank Gilani
B-40, First Floor, Moti Nagar,
New Delhi-110015
Respondent : Mrs. Satnam Dhamija
Public Information Officer & Dy. Director Department of Women and Child Development, GNCTD, 1, Canning Lane, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 RTI Application : 29/06/2010 PIO reply : 26/07/2010 First Appeal : 25/08/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 29/09/2010 Second appeal received on : 07/10/2010 Information Sought:
The Appellant asked 16 questions relating to the following:
1. Audit conducted by the Department of Women and Child Development, GNCTD in the MNGO's Modicare and Sosva.
2. Department of Women and Child Development, GNCTD asking the Audit party deputed by the AG(Audit) Delhi under the C&AG to stop the work of audit in the MNGO's.
Reply of the PIO:
The PIO, Department of Women and Child Development replied to question no.2, 6, 10, 14 and 15 and provided copies of documents pertaining to question no.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10. The PIO transferred question no. 9 and 16 to the PIO Mission Convergence/Samajik Suvidha Sangam, 4th Floor, Delhi Secretariat vide letter dated 14/07/2010 which was further transferred to the Chief Functionary/Project Coordinator of Sosva and Modicare Foundation on 28/09/2010. Question no. 12 and 13 was transferred to the PIO/Senior Superintendent, Vigilance, Department of Social Welfare, GNLS Complex, Delhi Gate vide letter dated 14/07/2010.
The PIO/Senior Superintendent, Vigilance, Department of Social Welfare, GNLS Complex, Delhi Gate replied to question no.12 and 13 vide letter dated 11/08/2010.
Grounds for first appeal:
Dissatisfactory reply of the PIO.
Order of First Appellate Authority:
The First Appellate Authority observed that the information had been provided by the PIO and the Appellant is satisfied with the same.
Grounds for second appeal:
Dissatisfactory reply of the PIO and decision of the concerned authority. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Mayank Gilani;
Respondent: Mrs. Satnam Dhamija, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director;
The PIO has given information but some queries of the Appellant are being reframed as under: 1- Whether CAG has delegated any powers to the Department of Women and Child Development to give any directions to the Audit Party under the control of CAG? 2- The Appellant wants to know if there is any rule under which the CAG audit party was asked to stop the audit.
3- Query-11: If any instruction has been received from Spl. Secretary to CM in the matter of letter no. 23/DWCD/GRC/SSS/2008-09/31968 dated 29/12/2008 it should be provided. If no instructions has been received this should be stated.
The appellant states that an order has been issued by Mr. Rajiv Kale, FAA & Director, Women & Child Development Department dated 29/09/2010 in which it has been stated that, "Both the PIO and the Appellant have been heard." The Appellant states that he was not present in the hearing and had informed the FAA earlier. In view of this the statement of the FAA that he had been heard is wrong. The FAA is warned to ensure that such statement which are not reflective of the truth are not given.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information on three points directed above to the Appellant before 20 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.)(Rnj)