Central Information Commission
Smt.Maya Davi Saini vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 November, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003016/10240
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003016
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Smt. Maya Devi
Through her advocate, S.P. Singh Shishodia
140, Lawyers Chambers, Western Wings
Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi.
Respondent : The Public Information Officer
Addl. District Magistrate (S) Office of the Dy. Commissioner (South) M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 07/05/2010 PIO replied : 03/06/2010 First appeal filed on : 18/07/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 13/08/2010 Second Appeal received on : 25/10/2010 The applicant had filed an application dated 4.8.2006 in reference to the application dated 5.7.2006 for payment in respect of Khasra No.2629/1953/1406 (0-17) under Award No.4 of 1994- 95 dated 17.5.1994, Village Tukhlakabad add Shumar No.25 and Khasra No.2918/2147/1044 (3-
3) under Award No.18/87-88, Village Tukhlakabad. Copy enclosed.
S. No Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO) 1 Action taken report on the aforesaid Requested to check the record related to application dated 04/08/2006 with I.D. and collect the copy of the concerned orders passed on the said application records after depositing the prescribed and the office notings. fees.
2 Whether any other person had raised As per records available, Sh. Shish Pal any claim against Khasra under claimed against Ph no. 2629/1953/1407 Award no. 4 of 1994-95 dated under A ward no. 4, Village Tughlakabad 17/05/1994, Village Tughlakabad and as per award file no claimant fees ph and Shumar No. 25 and Khasra, no. 2918/2147/1044 under award no. Village Tughlakabad. Name of such 18/87-98 Village Tughlakabad. claimant and copies of such objections.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and vague information provided by the PIO. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Maya Devi filed an appeal on 22.6.2010 against the ADM(S) in respect of ID No.254 before the undersigned. The notices for hearing in the matter were issued to the appellant and ADM(S) on 25.6.2010 for hearing In the matter on 01.07.10 at
3.00 p.m. Sh.Sandeep Saini S/O Ms.Maya Devi and Sh.S.K.Kaushik representative of ADM(S) were present.
On 1.7.16 Sh.Sandeep Salni S/C Maya Devi appeared before me and stated that his counsel Is out of station and requested for another date and the case was adjourned for 12.7.2010. On 12.7.2010 at 2.30 P.M. the First appellate authority was busy in an important meeting and thereafter the appeal was disposed off on merits by issuing the direction to the ADM(S) to re-examine the RTI application and furnish the information within 10 days on receipt of this order. Inadvertently order could not be placed for signatures before the First Appellate Authority; hence got delayed.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No information provided by the PIO.
Decision:
According to the submissions of the appellant the PIO has not furnished information as per the order of the FAA. No reasons appear to have been given by the PIO for not implementing the order of the FAA.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as per the available records to the appellant before 25 December 2010.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 30 December 2010. He will also send the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
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 30 November 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (VMK)