Central Information Commission
Mr.Chandeep Singh Lamba vs Gnctd on 16 August, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001902/8979
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001902
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Chandeep Singh Lamba
127, Shivalik Apartments,
Alaknanda, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019
Respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar
Public Information Officer & Assistant Registrar Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies Government of NCT of Delhi Old Court's Building, Parliament Street, New-Delhi-110001 RTI application filed on : 12/04/2010 PIO replied : 12/05/2010 First appeal filed on : 17/05/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 14/06/2010 Second Appeal received on : 08/07/2010 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Is it correct that confirmation of draw of the abovementioned Yes. Future course of action is not a society has not been done even after 6 years of allotment of part of the information. flats? When it is likely to be confirmed by Registrar of Societies.
2. Whether the draw of flats of NPSC society done under the As per records draw of lots of 196 supervision of representative of Registrar of Cooperative members was done in presence of Society and DDA. If yes, then why there is delay in representative of RCS & DDA and confirmation of draw. the rest part of question is not information.
3. Please let us know the laid down procedure of confirmation of This is not a part of the RTI act. u/s 2 draw. (f).
4. What are reasons for non Confirmation of Draw in this case? - Do-
Which official and department are responsible for the Not a part of the information.
5. confirmation of draw?
6. Is there any undue delay in this matter or such delay is normal - Do-
in all cases.
7. Is this delay is deliberate by the concerned official/department. - Do-
8. How many such cases are there where confirmation of draw - Do-
has not been even after more than 5 years of allotment of flats?
9. Has any letter / letters sent to Management Committee of This is not a part of the RTI act. u/s 2 Page 1 of 2 NPSC society for completion of any requirements, what so (f). ever? If yes, please tell the number and date of such letter / letters.
10 Did you receive any reply / replies from Management of - Do-
. NPSC society?
• What are points / issues which remain to be clarified?
11 Please arrange to provide a photocopy of the correspondence - Do-
. mentioned in point no. 9 & 10.
12 Please also provide the name and correspondence address of Mr. SK Hari, Deputy Director
. Vigilance Officer, Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Vigilance, O/o Registrar of C-
operative Societies, Parliament
Street, New Delhi.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Appeal is dismissed by the FAA. Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and Dismissal of Appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Public Information Officer & Assistant Registrar;
The PIO has provided most of the information but has erred in stating that information on query-9 is not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Whether any information has been sent or not is certainly information and consequently information on query-10 & 11 also should have been provided. If there is nothing on the records this should be stated.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information to the appellant before 30 August 2010.
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 16 August 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM) Page 2 of 2