Central Information Commission
Ms.Puspa Rani vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 26 November, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002730/10174
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002730
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms.Pushpa Rani
Matrimony and Child Welfare Centre (MCD), Guru Ram
Das Nagar,
Delhi-110092.
Respondent : Dr. Sushma Goel
Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (Health Admin.) Municipal Corporation of Delhi O/o Addl. Director Hospital Administration (M of CW), Town Hall, Chandani Chowk, Delhi-110006.
RTI application filed on : 19/05/2010
PIO replied : 30/06/2010
First appeal filed on : 06/07/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 02/08/2010
Second Appeal received on : 27/09/2010
Sr. Information sought Reply of PIO
1. Attested copies of nomination of members of Ist Attested copies of nomination of members of Ist Investing
Investing Committee, which visited on 16/01/2010, Committee (1 Page bearing No.21) and statements of 6
complaints, statements of prosecution witnesses prosecution witnesses (4 Pages bearing 22-25) have been
(staff members) and investigation report. supplied.
2. Attested copies of nomination of members of 2nd Attested copies of nomination of members of 2nd Investing
Investigating Committee, which visited on Committee (1 Page bearing No.11) and statements of 6
25/02/2010, complaints, statements of prosecution prosecution witness (9 Pages, bearing 12-20), have been
witnesses (staff members) and investigation report. supplied.
3. Attested copies of complaints, statements of Attested copies of report dated 03-03-2010 submitted by
prosecution witnesses (staff members) and Dr.Kashyap (1 page bearing No.26) has been supplied.
investigation report submitted by Dr.Hari Shnakar
Kashyap, Chairman, SC/ST Welfare Committee,
who visited on 25/02/2010.
4. Attested copies of complaints, statements of all the Attested copies of incomplete, investigating Report dated prosecution witnesses and investigation report by 20/04/2010 (2 Pages bearing No.1-2) and statements of 7 Dr.Venugopal, Inquiry Officer, who conducted prosecution witnessed (8 Pages bearing 3-10) have been enquiry on 19/04/2010. supplied.
5. Reasons for not giving a reasonable opportunity to It has been intimated that the reasons can be given only by me as per prescribed procedures during enquiry on the Inquiry Officer. 19/04/2010 by Dr.Venugopal, Inquiry Officer.
First Appeal:
Incomplete and misleading information received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
"As per statement of PIO legible information and copies of information sought by you have been supplied to you, as regarding supplying of copies without charging this is not possible."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Darshan Lal representing Ms.Pushpa Rani;
Respondent : Dr. Sushma Goel, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (Health Admin.);
The PIO has supplied information but the following discrepancies have been found: 1- Qeury-1: The copy of the investigation report and the complaints have not been provided. 2- Query-2: The copy of the investigation report and the complaints have not been provided.
3- Query-3: Complaint and statement of witness.
4- Query-4: Complaints have not been provided and the investigation report that has been
provided appears to have pages missing.
5- Query-5: If there are any reasons on the records this should be given. If there are no reasons on
the records the appellant will be informed.
The Appellant also shows that some of the photocopies of the records given to her are not complete and part of the record is missing. It is evident that there has been gross carelessness in providing the information. The PIO states that she has taken the assistance of Dr. Mrs. Renu Chopra, Deemed PIO under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act to provide the information, who is responsible for the deficiencies in providing the information.
The appellant would like to inspect the original files so that she can identify the records which she wants.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO Dr. Sushma Goel is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the Appellant on 06 December 2010 from 10.00AM onwards at the office of the PIO, 18th Floor, Health Department, Civic Center, Minto Road, New Delhi. The PIO will give attested photocopies of the records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 200 pages.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by Dr. Mrs. Renu Chopra, Deemed PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the deemed PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A show cause notice is being issued to her, and she is directed give her reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on her.
Dr. Mrs. Renu Chopra, Deemed PIO will present herself before the Commission at the above address on 30 December 2010 at 10.30am alongwith her written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on her as mandated under Section 20 (1). She will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with her.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 26 November 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AK) CC: To, Dr. Mrs. Renu Chopra, Deemed PIO through Dr. Sushma Goel, PIO & Dy. Director (Health Admin.);