Central Information Commission
Mr.Mahendra Pandey vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 July, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SG/A/2011/001757
Date of Hearing : July 29, 2011
Date of Decision : July 29, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Mahendra Pandey
Flat No. 18, C & D Block
Shalimar Bagh (Near Haidarpur)
Delhi - 110088.
Applicant was present.
Respondent(s)
Delhi Pollution Control Committee
4th floor, ISBT Buillding
Kashmere Gate
Delhi - 110006.
Represented by : Shri B L Chawla, EE/SPIO
Dr. Chetna Harjai,, Scientist.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/SG/A/2011/001757
ORDER
Adjunct to the CIC Order no. CIC/SG/C/2011/000169/12169 dated 27.4.2011. Background
1. The decision in the captioned order dated 27.4.11 is as follows :
"The Commission hereby directs the FAA to treat the copy of the Complaint as the first appeal and decide the matter in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act after giving all concerned parties an opportunity to be heard. The FAA is directed to peruse all the relevant documents during the hearing and examine whether the information provided by the PIO is complete, relevant and correct Where the FAA is satisfied that the information provided by the PIO is as per the records, the First Appeal shall be disposed of. In the event, there are any deficiencies in the information provided by the PIO, the FAA shall direct the PIO to provide the complete information in reply to the RTI application dated 10.1.2011 to the Complainant. "
The Appellate Authority in compliance with the CIC's Order directed the Appellant to appear for a hearing on 18.5.11. He thereafter issued an order on 27.5.11 . Not satisfied with the AA's Order the Appellant filed a complaint before the Commission. He wanted the Appellate Authority to explain what he meant by the term "Concealed" in his Order. Decision.
2. During the hearing the Appellant objected to the term "Concealed" used by the Appellate Authority in his order. He questioned as to how on 18.2.11 he can conceal any reply that has yet to be received on 22.2.11. Since it is not clear to the Commission from the Appellate Authority's order as to what exactly the Appellate Authority meant in the second para , he is directed to provide the required clarification for the use of the term "Concealed" by him. The Appellant also questioned as to why when copies of four out of the six proposals sought by him have been provided to him without any objection, two have been denied to him. The Respondent stated that they had obtained the submissions of the 3rd party who in their submissions refused the information under section 8 (1)
(d) of the RTI Act, since the information is confidential in nature and relates to trade secrets. He further added that the Appellate Authority too had denied the disclosure of the information. Hence the information was not provided to the Appellant.
3. The Commission on careful consideration of the submissions on record and after hearing both the parties is of the view that the 3rd party needs to be heard before taking a decision on the disclosure of the proposals of the two projects. It is therefore decided to hold another hearing on 26th August at 3.30 pm with both the third parties present at the hearing along with the Appellant and the Respondents. The PIO, DPCC to forward a copy of this Order to the two third parties Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh and Indian Systems of Medicines, Najafgarh . At this stage the Appellant complained that he has not received letters written to the third parties and also the replies sent by them. The PIO is directed to provide the copies of these communications to the Appellant by 25th August 2011.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc
1. Shri Mahendra Pandey Flat No. 18, C & D Block Shalimar Bagh (Near Haidarpur) Delhi - 110088.
2. The Public Information Officer Delhi Pollution Control Committee 4th floor, ISBT Buillding Kashmere Gate Delhi - 110006.
3. The Appellate Authorit Delhi Pollution Control Committee 4th floor, ISBT Buillding Kashmere Gate Delhi - 110006.
4. Officer in charge, NIC.
.
In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, giving (1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO's reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellant Authority, (4) copy of the Commission's decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided