Central Information Commission
Mrs. Sunita Joshi vs Office Of The Registrar Coop. ... on 12 February, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00330/1601
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00330
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mrs. Sunita Joshi,
J-1049, Gali No. 2,
Sarup Nagar, Delhi-110042.
Respondent 1 : Ms. Seema Bawa,
Asstt. Registrar & PIO, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Office of the Registrar Coop. Societies Parliament Street, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 05/09/2007 PIO replied : 10/09/2007 First appeal filed on : 29/10/2007 First Appellate Authority order : not replied. Second Appeal filed on : 08/11/2008
The appellant had asked in RTI application regarding license of Stamp Vender, names of the candidates with their qualifications, Criteria for issuance of Stamp Vender license.
Detail of required information:-
1. How many licenses of Stamp Vender have been issued in Delhi State during the period from 01/10/2006 to 31/08/2007.
2. Names of the Candidates provided with the said license along with their qualifications.
3. Criteria for issuance of Stamp Vender license.
4. My case for issuance of Stamp Vender license was recommended by the then DSM (Narela), Alipur, Delhi-36. During the year 2006 against my application dated 29/09/2006. in this regard the following information may also be provided:-
(A). Whether my case was approved by the competent authority for issuance of the Vender license or not.
(B). If yes, reasons for not issuing the license so far to me. (C). If no, in which ground case was rejected.
The PIO replied.
The application has been received from Smt. Sunita Joshi J-1049, Gali No. 2, Sarup Nagar, Delhi-110042.and received as ID. No. 503/2007/RTI (GOI) dated 05/09/2007 is transferred to your office under the RTI Act, 2005.
As per application you are requested to provide information in respect of your office which is as under:-
• The application/part of the application is therefore being transferred to you under sub- section (3) of Section 6 of RTI Act, 2005 for further necessary action. • The appellant has deposited the required fee of Rs.10/- under RTI Act vide receipt No. 11386 dated 05/09/2007 in this office.
• You are requested to immediately look into the matter and supply the information accordingly directly to the applicant.
• In case it does not fall under your jurisdiction it may further be transferred to the public Authority concerned under intimation to the applicant.
The First Appellate Authority ordered: -
Not replied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mrs. Sunita Joshi Respondent: Mr. Deepak Kumar on behalf of Mr. Kunal PIO The respondent states that his office has no information on this. The application had been transferred to Mr. Ranjit Singh SDM Saraswati Vihar at Kanjhwala Dist North West who has not supplied the information to the appellant. The First appellate authority is also guilty of complete dereliction of duty by not giving a decision on the appeal.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information will be given to the appellant by the Mr. Ranjit Singh SDM Saraswati Vihar who is the PIO before 28 February 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO Mr. Ranjit Singh within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the 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 PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1).
A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 5 March, 2009. He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner February 12, 2009.
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)