Central Information Commission
Kishan Lal Bansal vs Office Of The Mcd, Old Hindu College on 7 January, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel.: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/01154/SG/0908
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01154/
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Kishan Lal Bansal
9361, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj
Delhi-110006
Respondent 1 : Shri. R.P Sharma, Admin Office, (F/L)
Office of the MCD (Factory/ licensing)
Old Hindu College, Kashmere-Gate,
Delhi
RTI filed on : 14/02/2008
PIO replied : 14/03/2008
First appeal filed on : 17/04/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 15/04/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 14/07/2008
Information sought:
The appellant sought information regarding Record keeper of the Factory Licensing department of MCD. The details of the information asked are as follows:
Sl.No Information sought PIO's reply
01 Please give the name and tenure Suresh Kumar, LDC & -1
with the designation of Record- Mahesh Kumar , LDC & -1
keeper posted in the Factor- up to September-2002
Licensing department since J.S. Dabas, LDC, -2
January 1995 to till date? October 02 to February 2003
RAjbir Singh, LDC-3
March 03 to October 2003
S.K Jha, LDC & UDC-4
November 2003 to May 2007
Dinesh Kumar, LDC - 5
May 2007 to till date.
Please provide the employee/ID Denied under Section 8 of the RTI Act-2005.
number also.
02 Is there any watch and ward Office In-Charge
authority over the Record-
Keeper? If yes, who used to be
the said officer since 1995 to till
date?
03 Please supply the certified copy There are more than 1.5 lakhs file in record.
charge list (hand-over/take over) When SH. Dinesh Kumar, LDC took charge
of record maintained at the time from Sh. RAjbir, LDC no file wise charge list
taking and handing over the was prepared and it was said that all the files of
charge of record by the respective record are given in charge to you. The numbers
record keepers since 1995 to till of files in record is so high that no file wise
date? charge list was prepared. No other charge list
w.e.f 1995 is available.
The First Appellate Authority Order:
The FAA has disposed off the appeal and added, "From the perusal of the record, it is seen that the reply to Question No. 1, 2 & 3 given to the appellant was incomplete. The PIO is directed to make his best efforts to trace the record and to give right and complete information to the appellant as demanded in question No.1, 2 & 3. Within one weeks"
On receiving no information the PIO the appellant filed the second appeal. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant : Mr. Kishan Lal Bansal Respondent : Mr. R.P.Agarawl PIO
1. On query 1 the appellant points out that exact dates have not been given. The exact dates will be provided. The ID numbers will also be provided.
2. On query 2 the appellant states he wants names of the officers with the dates for which they were incharge. The respondent contends that the file is not 'traceable'. The PIO is directed to get the file and give the information. If the file cannot be found he will file a Police compliant for loss of the file and also obtain a certificate from the Additional Commissioner Revenue, certifying that the file is lost.
3. On query 3 the PIO states that the record is supposed to be maintained, but is not being maintained.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will provide the information on point 1 to the appellant before 30 January 2009.
The PIO will provide the information on point 2 to the appellant and the Commision before 30 Janaury 2009.
On point 3 the PIO will give the statement he has given orally to the appellant in writing before 30 Janaury 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 7th January, 2009 (For any further correspondence, please mention the decision number for a quick disposal)