Central Information Commission
Mr. Chander Sain Jain vs Registrar Of Cooperative Society on 23 December, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/002768/6062
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002768
Appellant : Mr. Chander Sain Jain,
Flat No.-126, Modern Coop. G/H
Society Ltd., Plot No.-5, Sector-15,
Rohini, New Delhi-110089
Respondent : Mr. Ved Prakash
Public Information Officer
Registrar of Cooperative Society
O/o the Registrar Coop. Societies,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001
RTI application filed on : 07/07/2009
PIO replied : 06/08/2009
First Appeal filed on : Not mentioned
First Appellate Authority order : 03/09/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 28/10/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 24/11/2009
Hearing Held on : 23/12/2009
Information sought:
1. Copy of Action on the letter of CIC, Delhi dated 21/02/2008(copy enclosed)
2. Copy of action on the DDA letter addressed to RCS Delhi dated 04/12/2005 and another letter dated 20/07/2006
3. Copy of action on DDA letter dated 20/02/2006
4. Copy of action DDA letter no. F dated 20/07/2006.
5. Copy of action on letter dated 11/02/1999.
6. Copy of Action PGC letter date 30/01/2009. in regards to conformation of flat no. 126 and refund of entry fees/ common good fund.
7. Copy of order of enquiry officer appointed earlier and at present in compliant against draw of allotment held on 06/01/1999 of Modern CHGS Ltd. Sec.-15 Rohini
8. Copy of complaints against draw of allotment Modern CGHS Ltd. Sec.-15 Rohini held by DDA on 06/01/1999.
9. Present Status of compliant against draw of allotment Modern CGHS Ltd. Sec-15 Rohini held on 06/01/1999 by DDA.
10. Copy of latest order with whom enquiry is pending and since long, date be given in compliant of draw held on 06/01/1999 by DDA in regards to Modern CGHS Ltd. Sec-15 Rohini.
PIO's Reply:
Appellant was requested to inspect the concerned file on any working day, identify the information and collect the informed/ copy after deposit the prescribed fee.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The FAA stated that the SPIO/AR(NW) replied to the Appellant on 06/08/2009 and allowed the Appellant to inspect the concerned file on any working day, identify the information and collect the information after depositing the prescribed fee. The Applicant has already inspected the file. However, a point-wise reply may also be given by the SPIO/AR(NW) to the Appellant. The SPIO/AR(NW) may also take necessary action on the pending letter as per the DCS Act and Rules.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Direction of FAA was not complied by the Respondent.
Appellant requested for point-wise reply.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. P.P.Gupta on behalf of Mr. Chander Sain Jain; Respondent: Mr. Ved Prakash, Public Information Officer;
The PIO has come completely unprepared and does not even know the issues involved in the matter. The FAA Mr. S. K. Jha has passed an order on 03/09/2009 directing that the information for which clarity has been obtained after the inspection should be provided in two weeks. This has not been done. The Commission takes strong inception that the PIO is coming to the hearing without knowing anything. The PIO is warned to come prepared when he is coming for the hearing. The present PIO states that he joined in November and at the time the FAA's order was given the PIO was Mr. M. L. Gupta, Assistant Registrar (Audit & Recovery).
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The present PIO Mr. Ved Prakash is directed to give the information to the Appellant before 10 January 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the then PIO Mr. M.L.Gupta within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the then PIO Mr. M. L. Gupta 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 then 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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 19 January 2010 at 2.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
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 23 December 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj CC:
Mr. M. L. Gupta, Assistant Registrar (Audit & Recovery).
Registrar of Cooperative Society O/o the Registrar Coop. Societies, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001