Central Information Commission
Mr. Davinder Singh vs O/O The Deputy Commissioner (Central), ... on 19 March, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000004/6928Adjunct
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000004
Complainant : Mr. Davinder Singh
Prop. Kartar Singh & Co. V-1/1
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027
Respondent : Mr. K. S. Meena
Public Information Officer &
Addl. District Magistrate (Central)
O/o the Deputy Commissioner (Central)
GNCTD, 14,Darya Ganj,
New Delhi-110002
Background:
The Complainant has deposited Rs. 10000/- on 17/08/1998 for voluntary registration of property dealer. Since the scheme was discontinued no registration was done and he had applied for a refund on 24/09/2002. He had sought the following information regarding this:
1- Whey the amount of Rs.10000/- paid by him has not been refund. 2- Why no reply had been given to him for his application for refund.
The complainant had filed a RTI application with the PIO, O/o the Deputy Commissioner (Central), 14, Darya Ganj, New Delhi on 16/07/2009 asking for certain information. On not having received the information within the mandated time of 30 days, he filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission.
On this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the PIO, O/o the Deputy Commissioner (Central), 14, Darya Ganj, New Delhi on 02/01/2010 with a direction to provide the information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
Commission's Order dated 22/02/2010:
The Commission allowed the Appeal on the basis of a letter dated 28/01/2010 from the PIO/ADM, O/o the Dy. Commissioner (Central) to the Commission. It was stated therein that information has been provided to the Complainant vide a letter dated 22/01/2010. Further the PIO had given a written explanation for the delay in providing the information. However, the explanation did not appear reasonable to the Commission.
Facts leading to the show cause hearing on 19/03/2010:
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it appeared that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub- section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appeared that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions and disciplinary action of Section 20 Page 1 of 2 (1) and (2).A show cause notice was therefore issued to the PIO vide Commission's decision dated 22/02/2010 with a direction to serve the same to such person(s) who are responsible for this delay in providing the information, and direct them to be present before the Commission along with the respondents.
Note: The Commission has inadvertently registered another complaint in the same matter as Complaint no.CIC/SG/C/2009/001795. Further, the Commission also passed a decision in the said Complaint on 17/02/2010 as CIC/SG/C/2009/001795/6881. In view of the fact that both of this present complaint and the Complaint no. CIC/SG/C/2009/001795 are the same, the Commission has infructuated Complaint No.CIC/SG/C/2009/001795.
Relevant Facts During the Show Cause Hearing on 19/03/2010:
The following were present.
Respondent: Mr. K. S. Meena, present PIO & ADM (Central);
Mr. A. V. Premnath (ADM-New Delhi) and the then PIO;
The then PIO Mr. A. V. Premnath states his office received the RTI Application on 21/07/2009 and it was sent to SDM (HQ) Mr. Girish Pandey who was the holder of the information. SDM (HQ) Mr. Girish Pandey stated on 22/07/2009 that the information did not pertain to him and that this information falls in sub-division Paharganj. Hence the RTI application was sent to SDM (Paharganj) on 22/07/2009. SDM(Paharganj) stated on 24/07/2009 that there was no record regarding any registration of estate agents in his office. He stated that the relevant records may be available at the Head Quarters. On 01/08/2009 the application was sent to DC(Central). Mr. Akash Mahopatra Dy. Commissioner (Central) wrote "why is it being routinely marked to me when it is an RTI query to be dealt by PIO?" In September 2009 the dealing assistance Mr. Tarun Kant who was dealing with RTI matters was transferred and relieved directly did not handover the charge to any one. Hence the RTI application was left in his papers and could not be attended to. After the Commission sent a notice the PIO sent it to the Accounts Department from where it is learnt that there is no way of tracking the payment of Rs.10000/- or letter asking for refund.
In view of the explanations given by the earlier PIO and present PIO it appears that no body can be held responsible for not been able to provide information. Hence the penalty proceedings are dropped. Before parting with the matter the Commission would like to express its anguish at the fact that the procedures and the methods of working appear to be not conducive to delivering outputs with minimum efforts.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 19 March 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SP) Page 2 of 2