Central Information Commission
Dr. (Mrs.) Ranjana Singh vs C.P.W.D. on 30 April, 2007
ORDER
Wajahat Habibullah, C.I.C.
1. In our Decision of 2.4.07, we had directed as follows:
From the above it will be seen that even were it conceded that there was delay in receiving the application which was submitted in the office of Post Master, as borne out by the documents on record the information became due on 25.8.06. The department have now conceded that the information need not have been kept confidential but even if we were to allow for the fact that it had been kept undisclosed under the genuine conviction that it could be withheld under Section 8(1)(g) and (h),the period between 25.8.06 and 27.9.06 remains unaccounted for. Shri Sawant Ram, EE, has stated before us that the papers were not in his possession and he has only complied with orders in responding to the application on 27.9.06 by the SE's office. Engineer Shri A.K.Garg who is Superintending Engineer will, therefore, submit a report of the daily movement of the application between the dates he received the application in his office to the date that the reply was sent, fixing the responsibility on the official/officials with whom it was pending and submit the same to us by 30th April,2007 at 10.00 a.m. on which date all the officers named in the movement letter would also appear before us to explain why they should not pay a penalty of Rs. 250/- per day for each day when the case was pending with them.
2. In response to this we have received a report from Er. A.K. Garg, S.E., DCC-VI dated 2.4.07 in which he has clarified that the application was received in his office only on 24.7.06. However, the reply was sent only on 27.9.06, since the matter had to be cleared under Section 8(1)(a) & (g). In this letter and its enclosures Er. A.K. Garg has not identified any official/officials with whom the case was pending during the period. However, this matter was heard on 30.4.07. The following are present:
1. Mr. Digvijay Singh, representative of appellant Dr Ranjana Singh
2. Mr. Jagbir Singh, assisting appellant
3. Er. A.K.Garg, SE, DCC-6, CPWD
4. Mr. P.S.Tuli, A.E. (P), O/O SE, DCC-VI CPWD
5. Mr. Satinder Singh O/O SE, DCCC-VI, CPWD
3. Er. A.K. Garg presented us with the further Para wise reply dated 27.4.07 in which the details of the movement of the file together with date of dispatch and letter number, by whom received and the number of days pending has been provided as follows:
_______________________________________________________________________________ Sr. Date of Authority Recd. Recd. Dy. No. No. Remar No. dispatc On By & on dt. of ks h & dated in APIO day letter O/o SE, DCC-VI s No. DCC-VI _______________________________________________________________________________ 1 996 Received from 25.7.06 26.7.06 - 1 25.7.06 O/O Chief Engineer/APIO 2 2338 Sent to EE, G - - -
26.7.06 Division by SE, DCC-VI 3 182 Received back 2.8.06 3.8.06 63-con -
2.8.06 from EE G- 3.8.06 Division
4 2513 Reply sent to CE, - - - 4 Including 7.8.06 NDZ-III by APIO weekly DCCC-VI & on off dt.
EE G-Division 5.8.06
letter No. 182 dt. & 6.8.06
2.8.06
5 1110 Received from 23.8.06 28.8.06 564
31.8.06 O/o CE/PIO in 28.8.06
response to
APIO,DCC-VI
letter of 7.8.06
6 11 Reply sent to CE - - - 3
31.8.06 NDZ-III against
letter of PIO
NCDZ-III on dt.
22.8.06
7 1180 Reminder from 7.9.06 7.9.06
7.9.06 CE, NDZ-III in
continuation to
letter of 22.8.06
8 1193 Reminder from 11.9.06 12.9.06 1281-S
8.9.06 CE, NDZ-III in 12.9.06
continuation to
letter of 7.9.06
9 166 Reply sent to CE, - - - 6 Including
13.9.06 NDZ-III in weekly
response to off on
Sr.No. 6 & 7 9.9.06
&
10.9.06
10 2600 Directive from 14.9.06 14.9.06 -
14.9.06 CE,NDZ-III in
response SE's
letter of 13.9.06
at Sr. No. 8
11 2599 Received from 15.9.06 18.9.06
14.9.06 EE(HQ) O/o CE
-NDZ-III for
initiating action
in response at
Sr. No. 4
12 2694 Reply sent to CE - - - 1
15.9.06 NDZ-III in
response to letter
at Sr.No. 8 & 9
13 2986-H Reply sent to CE - - -
18.9.06 NDZ-III by SE in
response to CE's
letter No. 2600 dt.
14.9.06 at S.No.9
14 2649 Case submitted to 19.9.06 20.9.06 1321-S
19.9.06 ADG (TD) by CE 20.9.06
NDZ-III and copy
to ADG (W) in
response office;
No. Nil dt. 21.7.06
and this office
letter dt. 15.9.06
at Sr. No. 11
15 2723 Final draft reply 27.9.06 27.9.06
27.9.06 /directive received
from CE, NDZ-III
in response to
ADG (TD)'s letter
No. 242 dt.
15.9.06
16 149A Reply sent to - - -
27.9.06 applicant in
response to S. No.
15 and copy to
ADG (TD)/ADG
(W)/EC NDZ-III
and other
concerned office.
_______________________________________________________________________________
4. Because it appears that there was an initial delay in the papers being received in the office of S.E., we may concede that the information sought by appellant Dr. Mrs. Ranjana Singh became due only on 25.8.06. The delay from this period up to 27.9.06 when the directive from CENDZ-III was received in the office of SE on 27.9.06 is, therefore, clearly of 32 days. During this period the matter remained pending in the office of CE, NDZ-III. Although respondents sought valiantly to defend their HQ, the officials dealing with this application in the office of CE, NDZ III have clearly rendered themselves liable for penalty Under Section 5(5). The penalty that thus becomes payable is Rs. 8,250/-. The Chief Engineer, NDZ-III in whose office the delay occurred is now directed to make an enquiry to fix responsibility on the official/officials responsible for the delay, seek their explanation and submit the same to us by 15.5.07, failing which he will render himself liable for payment of this penalty.
5. Shri Dig Vijay Singh, representing appellant Dr. Mrs. Ranjana Singh while agreeing that some of the information sought, as directed by our orders of 13.3.07 had indeed been received, this concerned information sought at point 4 of his application, while information with regard to points 1, 2 & 3 remains outstanding. To this Shri A.K. Garg responded by citing the letter of 3.4.07,a copy of which has been endorsed to us in which, in his view, all questions have been responded to. However, if there is any further clarification required by appellant Dr. Ranjana Singh, this can be provided within to her the next one week after receiving the specifics of the clarification sought from appellant.
6. Announced. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.