Central Information Commission
Joginder Kaur vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 27 January, 2021
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील सख्ं या / Second Appeal No.: CIC/ADDDM/A/2019/118841
JOGINDER KAUR .....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनतम
PIO,
Sub-Divisional Magistrate-(Delhi Cantt.)
(Government of NCT of Delhi), Delhi Cantt.,
New Delhi District, 12/1, Jam Nagar House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110011.
...प्रतर्वतदीगण/Respondent
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 03-08-2018
CPIO replied on : 06-03-2019
First appeal filed on : 15-01-2019
First Appellate Authority order : Nil
Second Appeal dated : 24-04-2019
Date of Hearing : 27-01-2021
Date of Decision : 27-01-2021
lwpuk vk;qDr : Jh हीरालाल सामररया
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Information sought:
The Appellant sought information through 06 points regarding compensation amount for the Legal Heirs of each deceased of "1984 Anti Sikh Riots" inter alia including amount of compensation which is announced by the Government of India (Central Government) and Government of Delhi (Delhi Government) from the year 1984 to till date, amount which is paid by Government of India and Government of Delhi from the Year 1984 to till date, status of applications for receiving compensation by the Legal Heirs/representatives of Late Karnail Singh From the year 1984 to till date etc. Page 1 of 3 Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has provided misleading information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: present in person Respondent: Piyush Rohankar, SDM & PIO, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi District, 12/1, Jam Nagar House,Shahjahan Road, New Delhi, present in person.
Appellant stated that she has not received relevant information sought in the instant RTI Application.
PIO submitted that subject matter of instant RTI Application pertains to SDM, Dwarka and thus, it was transferred to their office after the receipt of the notice of hearing.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that Mr. Ritesh Juneja, SDM & then PIO has grossly erred by not transferring the instant RTI Application to the concerned department under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. It rather appears that then PIO is not well acquainted with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, Commission expresses displeasure and counsels Mr. Ritesh Juneja, SDM & then PIO to acquaint himself well with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, so that such lapses do not recur in future, A copy of this order shall be served on Mr. Ritesh Juneja, SDM & then PIO at his present address though the present PIO under intimation to the Commission.
Now, Commission in the interest of justice, directs the present PIO to procure the relevant information from the concerned department wherever it exists and provide the same to the Appellant, free of cost.
In case relevant information is not available on records in either of the departments, then PIO is directed to file an appropriate affidavit stating that relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application is not available on records in either of the concerned departments (the details of the same must be enumerated in the said affidavit). The said affidavit should be sent to the Commission by the PIO with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant.Page 2 of 3
CIC/ADDDM/A/2019/118841 The said directions of the Commission must be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयुक्त)
Authenticated true copy
(अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत)
Ram Parkash Grover (रतम प्रकतश ग्रोवर)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 3 of 3