Central Information Commission
Mrvikas Yadav vs Registrar Cooperative Society, Gnct, ... on 13 February, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2014/001005
Vikas Yadav v. PIO, RCS
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 17.02.2014 Reply: 07.04.2014 Time:
FAA: 28.04.2014 FAO: 28.05.2014 Time:
SA: 25.06.2014 Hearing: 03.02.2014 Decision: 1322015
Show Cause :
PIO dated 07.04.2014
Result: Appeal Disposed of
Parties Present:
The appellant is represented by Mr. Anand V Khatri. The Public Authority is not represented.
Information sought:
CIC/SA/A/2014/001005 Page 1
2. Appellant through his RTI application had sought for information in relation to Manokama CGHS Ltd Namely, Copy of affidavits and verification certificate submitted by the management committee of RCS Office Vide their letter dated 01.07.2013, Supply the particulars of elected oofice bearers in respect of the management committee, copy of the Annual audit reports submitted by the society for the year 201112 & 201213, Supply copy of the deficiency of memo issue by the RCS office in respect of Society letter dated 01.07.2013.
PIO response:
3. PIO(Audit) with respect to Point No. 1,2&4 stated that the information sought does not relate to their branch and for Point No. 3 requested the appellant to submit the fee for Rs
106.
Ground for First Appeal:
4. That the information sought has not been furnished by the PIO inspite of Payment of the necessary charges Via letter dated 28.04.2014..
First Appellate Authority Order:
5. FAA advised the appellant to inspect the records with respect to NW Zone and with respect to the information held by the Audit branch he stated that the appellant can obtain it after paying the necessary charges as stated by the PIO.
Ground for Second Appeal:
6. That the PIO has failed to provide the information in relation to Point No. 1, 2 & 4 inspite of it being not voluminous and for Point No. 3 he stated that the necessary charges had CIC/SA/A/2014/001005 Page 2 already been paid by him. The appellant therefore requested the commission to direct the PIO to furnish the information to the appellant.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
7. The appellant's representative made his submissions. The Public Authority is not represented. The appellant submitted that even though they deposited the requisite costs as demanded by the respondent, they have not received the information. During the first appeal, the FAA did not recognize the representative deputed by the appellant and did not hear him. As against the demand of Rs.106/ towards costs, the appellant had paid Rs.110/ for 53 pages information which was not yet supplied. The other division has replied that the information sought by the appellant is voluminous as it involves 78 pages and refused to give the information.
Decision :
8. Having heard the submissions made by the appellant's representative and having perused the record available in the file, the Commission directs the respondent authority/PIO to show cause why maximum penalty cannot be imposed on him for not furnishing the 53 pages information, even after the appellant depositing the costs and for refusing to supply 78 pages of information, saying that it is voluminous, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
9. The Commission orders accordingly.
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy CIC/SA/A/2014/001005 Page 3 (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar
1. The PIO under the RTI Act, Government of Delhi Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Parliament Street New Delhi110001
2. Shri Vikas Yadav Lawyers Chamber No.852, Dwarka District Court Complex, Sector10, Dwarka, New Delhi110075 CIC/SA/A/2014/001005 Page 4