Central Information Commission
Mr.Dineshkaushik vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/902033/9237
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/902033
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Dinesh Kaushik
A-56 Anoop Nagar,
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059
Respondent : Mr. R. K. Lalwat
` Public Information Officer & & SDM (Election South West) Govt. of NCT of Delhi Old Terminal Tax Building, Kapashera, New Delhi- 110037 RTI application filed on : 24/04/2010 PIO replied : 14/05/2010 First appeal filed on : 07/06/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 28/06/2010 Second Appeal received on : 16/07/2010 S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Please provide following details for each officer and employee As per Chapter II 8(j) of RTI separately employed in the office of AERO AC-32 Act, 2005 and its rules the a. Salary question of appellant is b. Dearness Allowance irrelevant and therefore the c. Sumptuary Allowance information sought by the d. Leave Encashment e. Medical Reimbursement f. Reimbursed telephone Bills g. TA/DA h. Other traveling allowance if any i. HRA availed j. Conveyance allowance.
2. Details of BLOs employed by AERO AC-32 from 01 January to 31 Same as above.
March 2010.
3. Details of allowance and other expenses paid to BLOs from 01 January No information concerning this 2009 to 31 March 2010. Please provide details for each BLO separately. issue is available with this Dept.
4. For how many days each BLO has worked for AERO AC-32 from Legal notices have been sent to during year 2009-10? Please provide details of each BLO separately. the owners of the illegal connection being used for commercial purposes.
5. Please provide copy of attendance register of AERO AC-32 for the There is no available month of Jan, Feb, March and April 2010. information regarding the illegal meters being installed in the presence of the meter reader.
6. Details of temporary workers/employees hired by AERO AC-32 during The Dept. does not have any Page 1 of 2 year 2009-10 as per following details a) Name of employee information concerning this
b) Date of hire issue.
c) Scale of pay
d) Date if leaving
e) Date of last payment.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA directed AERO AC-32 to provide complete correct information with respect to all questions of the appellant within 4days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information provided by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Guru Prasad, GR-II Dass on behalf of Mr. R. K. Lalwat, Public Information Officer & & SDM (Election South West);
The respondent states that the information was provided to the appellant on 04/09/2010. Inspite of the order of the FAA no information has been provided to the appellant earlier. On 29/07/2010 a letter was sent to the appellant which is complete defiance of the order of the FAA provided no information. The PIO states that the information has been sought from Mr. V. K. Chauhan on 30/04/2010 who gave the initial reply refusing to give the information. After the order of the FAA on 28/06/2010 to give the information in four working days Mr. Unmesh Pahare, Superintendent (AERO-32) gave the refusal to give the information.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information appears to have been provided.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO Mr. Unmesh Pahare, Superintendent (AERO-32)within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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 deemed 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.
Mr. Unmesh Pahare, Superintendent (AERO-32) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 20 October 2010 at 12.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 06 September 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (VN) CC: To, Mr. Unmesh Pahare, Superintendent (AERO-32) through Mr. R. K. Lalwat, Public Information Officer & SDM (Election South West);
Page 2 of 2