Central Information Commission
Kishore Madnani vs Office Of The Registrar Cooperative ... on 16 June, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/RECOS/A/2018/168087
CIC/RECOS/A/2019/122454
CIC/RECOS/A/2019/122453
CIC/RECOS/A/2019/126747
Shri Kishore Madnani ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO/Registrar Cooperative Societies,
Old Court Building, Parliament Street,New Delhi
Through: Sh. Ajit Kumar - PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 16.06.2020
Date of Decision : 16.06.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
168087 17.07.2018 Nil 27.08.2018 03.10.2018
122454 14.01.2019 27.02.2019 22.02.2019 11.03.2019
122453 05.12.2018 01.02.2019 16.01.2019 22.02.2019
126747 16.01.2019 Nil 11.03.2019 26.03.2019
CIC/REGCS/A/2018/168087
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 17.07.2018seeking information on the
following 03 points:
A. The date on which DR (Audit), has seen Applicant's representation dated
28.06.2018 on the subject matter "Special Audit of Jhulelal Sindhu Nagar
Cooperative GH Society Ltd for the years 2010-11 to 2012-13." whereby the
forgery and manipulations in the DCHFC loan record of the society has been
exposed.
Page 1 of 9
B. Details of action taken by DR(Audit), on the following requests made at para
12 of the above representation along with True copies of Noting Sheets
recording the deliberations-
a. M/s Gaur & Associates be directed to strictly comply with the
provisions of Section 60(2) of the DOS Act, 2003, Rule 80(6) and the
Instructions to CAs for audit issued by the office of RCS for conduct of the
Special Audit.
b. Shri Lal Mani, present Administrator be directed to submit to M/s
Gaur & Associates the entire DCHFC loan record for the period 2010-11
to 2012-13 to enable the Auditors to determine the liability of the fraud,
forgery & manipulations in the DCHFC loan record.
c. In case there are any deficiencies in the DCHFC loan record taken
over by Shri Lal Mani, then he be directed to disclose the action taken by
him in accordance with the provisions of DCS Act, 2003 or by filing an
FIR with the police authorities.
d. The AR (Audit) & AR (Section-3) be issued with a Show-Cause Notice
for not having submitted the complaints related to the affairs of the
society which also include a number of complaints related to
Manipulations in the DCHFC loan record of the society during the period
2010-11 to 2012-13 and thereby obstructing the discharge of the
responsibility assigned to the Auditor to comment on complaints received
against the society by the Department.
C. The date on which DR(Audit) has informed the RCS of the contents of the
above representation and the decision/directions given by the RCS.
[Queries have been reproduced verbatim]
On not receiving any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated
27.08.2018. FAA vide order dated 03.10.2018 disposed off the First Appeal
directing the PIO (Audit) to furnish the information as asked in point no. A and
C of RTI application to the Appellant within one week. As regard, information
asked in point no. B of RTI application, the FAA noted that Sr. Asst. of Audit
Branch had submitted that the Appellant had sought information in the shape
of query/clarification which is not information as per Sec 2(f) of the RTI Act,
2005 and hence the same cannot be furnished.
Feeling aggrieved over non-compliance of the FAA's order, Appellant approached
the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Submissions dated nil have been received from the appellant reiterating the facts he had stated in the Second Appeal about non-compliance of FAA's order on points A & C of the RTI applications and stating that point B had been incorrectly adjudged by the FAA.
Page 2 of 9In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephone numbers and reiterate their respective stance. Appellant states that the Commission may decide the case on the basis of records already submitted.
Decision:
On perusal of records of the case, it is noted that the PIO has erred in not replying to the RTI application and even after specific orders of the FAA, the information against points A) and C) have not been furnished by the PIO. Thus clearly there has been a violation of provisions of the RTI Act, at the hands of the then PIO.
In the light of the above position, the Respondent/PIO is directed to obtain necessary information against points number A) and C), in compliance of the FAA's order dated 03.10.2018 and provide the same to the Appellant, within four weeks of receipt of this order. It is further directed that Respondent- PIO/AR(Sec-III/GH)-Sh. Ajit Kumar shall submit a comprehensive compliance report in this regard, before the Commission, by 31.07.2020.
CIC/RECOS/A/2019/122454 The Appellant filed RTI application dated 14.01.2019seeking information on the following 03 points:
1. With reference to letter F. No. 47/55-GH/Sec-III)/2017-18/4716 dated 23.03.2018 by AR (Section-3) to the Administrator of Jhulelal SNCGH Society Ltd (copy of letter attached) the following information be provided:-
a. Certified True Copy of the details of action taken by the Administrator on the complaint about fraud, forgery and manipulations in DCHFC loan record of the society.
b. Certified True Copy of the details of action taken by the Administrator on the complaint regarding the irregularities in the list of original 600 members of the society approved by office of RCS in 1988.
2. As per the above letter, the intimation about action taken was required to be submitted within 10 days by the Administrator and in the event of non- receipt of reply from the Administrator, Certified True Copies of Reminders sent by the AR (Section-3).
3. In the event of non-receipt of reply from the Administrator, the date on which Shri B.S. Thakur, DR, was informed of the disobedience by the Page 3 of 9 Administrator of the directions passed by AR (section-3) and the details of directions passed by Shri B.S. Thakur in the matter.
4. Action taken on the Applicant's representation dated 19.05.2014 to the Special Registrar, Cooperative Societies, highlighting the irregularities in the list of original 600 members of JhulelalSindhu Nagar CGH Society Ltd.
[Queries have been reproduced verbatim] Having not received any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 22.02.2019. PIO/ARCS (Sec-3), vide letter dated 27.02.2019 furnished reply to the Appellant informing him that information had been sought from the Society concerned. FAA vide order dated 11.03.2019 disposed off the First Appeal without issuing notice of hearing to the Appellant. In his order dated 11.03.2019, FAA directed the PIO/Sec-3 to provide the required information/reply to the Appellant within 2 weeks of the issue of the order.
Feeling aggrieved over non-compliance of the FAA's order, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Submissions dated nil have been received from the appellant reiterating the facts he had stated in the Second Appeal about non-compliance of FAA's order and further stating that after three months of the FAA's order, PIO sent a letter dated 10.06.2019 directing the Administrator to provide information to the appellant. Administrator vide letter dated 08.07.2019 replied to the appellant conveying that no action can be taken since the appellant is not a member of the society and in fact an amount of Rs. 8,31,018/- is due to be paid by the appellant. Appellant has refuted the claim of the Administrator stating that he is neither a member of the society nor purchased a flat nor attorney holder and has never taken any loan from the society, which had been conveyed by the appellant to the PIO/AR, Sec-3.
Respondent-Sh. Ajit Kumar-ARCS - Sec-III/GH has submitted a response dated
12.06.2020, relevant excerpt whereof is as under:
Vide office letter dated 23.03.2018, representation dated 16.12.2017 alongwith enclosures and representation dated 19.05.2014 of the appellant were sent by the respondent;
Information was provided on 27.02.2019 against queries related to RCS and the same was also forwarded to the Administrator, though Administrator did not reply to the same;
Current Administrator of the Society is Sh. Surender Kumar Bhandoria; FAA adjudicated the First Appeal vide order dated 11.03.2019; Part of the information which was sought by the appellant and has not been provided, related to the Society and Administrator of the Society.Page 4 of 9
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephone numbers and reiterate their respective stance. Appellant in fact states that the Commission may decide the case on the basis of records already submitted.
Decision:
On perusal of records of the case, it is noted that the information sought by the Appellant against queries 1 and 2 ought to have been obtained by the PIO within a fixed timeline, invoking Section 5(4) of the RTI Act and made available to the Appellant. Instead the Respondent seems to have passed the onus of responding to the Society viz. Jhulelal Sindhu Nagar CGH Society and escaped responsibility in this case. On the other hand, the FAA has passed an order dated 11.03.2019 directing PIO/Sec-3 to provide information, without adjudging the First Appeal and without granting any opportunity to either Appellant or PIO to represent their cases. Such a mechanical order was naturally not adhered to by the officer concerned. Lapse on the part of the FAA in not conducting hearing of the First Appeal appropriately has thus led to non-compliance of the FAA's order.
In the light of the above position, the Respondent is directed to obtain necessary information against queries number 1 and 2 and provide the same to the Appellant, within four weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent- PIO/AR(Sec-III/GH)-Sh. Ajit Kumar shall submit a comprehensive compliance report in this regard, before the Commission, by 31.07.2020.
CIC/RECOS/A/2019/122453 The Appellant filed RTI application dated 05.12.2018seeking information on 09 points mentioned hereunder:
A. The date on which the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, has seen Applicant's representation dated 21.10.2018 to him on the subject Conduct of Shri Lal Mani, Administrator, Jhulelal SNCGH Society, of suppression of facts and providing misleading information and the direction passed by the RCS for its disposal.
B. The date on which the above representation was seen by Shri B.S. Thakur, DR, who also monitors the affairs of the above society based on inputs given by the AR (Section 3).
C. Name of the officer who was required to examine the above representation in details and provide the feedback to Registrar, Cooperative Societies.Page 5 of 9
D. True copy of letter written to the Shri Lai Mani, Administrator, for his comments on the contents of the above, representation.
E. True copy of the reply/comments received from Shri Lal Mani, Administrator to the contents of the above representation.
F. True copy of noting sheets recording the deliberations and decision taken for disposal of above representation.
G. Details of action taken against Shri Lal Mani, Administrator for his act of providing misleading information by suppression of facts as highlighted in the above representation duly supported by material facts/documents.
H. Time frame within which Applicant's above representation is required to be disposed off and the Applicant informed of its disposal.
I. In case no action has been taken so far on the representation, the present status of action being taken. Time period for which information is required As above.
[Queries have been reproduced verbatim] On not receiving any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 16.01.2019.PIO/Asst. Registrar G/H, vide letter dated 01.02.2019 informed the Appellant that he may inspect the file on any working day and get the copy desired after depositing the requisite fee of Rs. 2/- per page on all points. FAA vide order dated 22.02.2019 directed the PIO/Sec-3 to provide the required information/reply to the Appellant if available within 2 weeks of the issue of this order.
Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of the FAA's order, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Submissions dated nil have been received from the appellant reiterating the facts he had stated in the Second Appeal and adding that the reply of the PIO was futile because when he visited the respondent's office to inspect the file, he was informed that the concerned file is not readily available and that a fresh date will be intimated when the file is available.
Respondent-Sh. Ajit Kumar-ARCS - Sec-III/GH has submitted a response dated 10.06.2020, relevant excerpt whereof is as under:
"...In response to the FAA's order dated 22.02.2019, it is submitted that no reply was sent to the applicant till date as the General Lok Sabha Election 2019 was announced to be held on 12.05.2019 and most of the staff was deployed on election duty including PIO as a result reply couldn't be sent to the applicant and it is neither deliberate nor intentional but purely circumstantial."Page 6 of 9
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Both parties participated in the hearing on being contacted on their respective telephone numbers and reiterate their respective stance. Appellant in fact states that the Commission may decide the case on the basis of records already submitted.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveal that PIO did respond to the Appellant's RTI application, offering him inspection of records and copies of documents to be obtained at a price. However, the FAA's order dated 22.02.2019 was not acted upon by the PIO. It is noted that the First Appeal was decided by the FAA without granting any opportunity to either Appellant or PIO to represent their cases. Such a mechanical order was a mere paperwork and perhaps not even put to the knowledge of the PIO for implementation. Lapse on the part of the FAA is responsible for the non-compliance of the FAA's order.
In the light of the above position, and considering that in the current time most of the officials from office of Respondent are busy in COVID duties, it is found expedient that the Appellant be granted inspection of relevant records within four weeks of receipt of this order, on a mutually convenient date and time and provide copies of documents identified by the Appellant, free of cost, upto first 20 pages. Respondent-PIO/AR(Sec-III/GH)-Sh. Ajit Kumar shall submit a comprehensive compliance report in this regard, before the Commission, by 31.07.2020.
CIC/RECOS/A/2019/126747 The Appellant filed RTI application dated 16.01.2019seeking information on 07 points, as mentioned hereunder:
1. With reference to the detailed deliberations in the annexed copy of the order No. 10/RTI/Appeal/NWD dated 08.01.2019 by the FAA, Office of DCP cum FAA, NW Distt, Ashok Vihar Complex, New Delhi-110052 and the contents of the noting sheets annexed to it (Copy of FAA Order at Annexure A-1), the following information be provided:-
a. The date on which the letter No. 6383/SHO/Subash Place dated 09.11.2016 was seen by the RCS. Copy of the letter is annexed as Annexure A-2.
b. Names of the concerned ARs and DRs since the date of receipt of the above letter dated 09.11.2016 till date who have seen the said letter.
Page 7 of 9c. True copy of the Noting sheets recording the deliberations and the decision taken for disposal of the complaints forwarded by the above letter dated 09.11.2016 by the SHO with the specific request to get the complaints enquired into as per RCS Act and to inform him in case any criminal angle/criminality is found for taking of appropriate legal action.
d. True Copy of the enquiry conducted by office of RCS into the complaints forwarded by the SHO vide letter dated 09.11.2016.
e. True Copy of the reply sent by office of RCS to the SHO in response to above letter dated 09.11.2016 informing him of the outcome of the enquiry into the complaints.
2. With reference to para. 2 of the above order dated 08.01.2019 by office of DCP-cum FAA, the True Copy of the reply under the RTI Act, 2005 sent within the specified period on transfer of the application to office of RCS.
3. With reference to para 4 of the above Order dated 08.0.1.2019, the following information be provided;-
a. The date on which Shri B.S. Thakur, DR, FAA has seen the copy of the Appeal forwarded to him by the office of the DCP-cum FAA.
b. Details of action taken by Shri B.S. Thakur, DR, from the date of receipt of the copy of the Appeal till date.
4. The details of action taken/disposal of Applicant's letter submitted on 11.07.2017 annexed as Annexure A-3.
And other similar queries [Queries have been reproduced verbatim] Having not received any reply from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 11.03.2019.FAA vide order dated 26.03.2019 disposed off the First Appeal without issuing notice of hearing to the Appellant. In his order dated 26.03.2019, FAA directed the PIO/Sec-3 to provide the required information/reply to the Appellant if available within 2 weeks of the issue of this order.
Feeling aggrieved over non-compliance of the FAA's order, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Submissions dated nil have been received from the appellant reiterating the facts he had stated in the Second Appeal and adding that he received a vague and evasive reply dated 31.12.2019 from Sh. Ajit Kumar-AR-Sec-3 claiming non-availability of documents. Appellant appears to be aggrieved because he was offered inspection of records, without specifying any date or time.Page 8 of 9
Respondent-Sh. Ajit Kumar-ARCS - Sec-III/GH has submitted a response dated 11.06.2020, relevant excerpt whereof is as under:
FAA heard the appeal without issuing hearing notice and passed the order dated 26.03.2019 the General Lok Sabha Election 2019 was announced to be held on 12.05.2019 and most of the staff was deployed on election duty including PIO as a result reply couldn't be sent to the applicant and it is neither deliberate nor intentional but purely circumstantial Now the respondent has sent reply of the RTI as well as compliance of order of FAA, to the appellant, vide letter dated 11.06.2020, copy whereof has been annexed with the submission.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Appellant participated in the hearing on being contacted on his telephone number and Respondent also participated in the hearing over telephone.
Appellant stated that he received the submissions from the Respondent in this case only last evening and needs time to go through the contents thereof. Hence, he requested for an adjournment of this particular Appeal so that he can make suitable averments on a later date.
Interim Decision:
In view of the Appellant's request, the instant appeal is directed to be adjourned, to be listed in normal course by the Registry.
Remaining three appeals are disposed off with appropriate directions, as detailed above.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/ 011-26180514 Page 9 of 9