Central Information Commission
Sanyal Kumar vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 10 August, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067
F. No.CIC/ADDDM/C/2017/118719
Date of Hearing : 09.08.2018
Date of Decision : 09.08.2018
Complainant/Complainant : Mr. Sanyal Kumar
Respondent : PIO
Nodal Officer - (PC & PNDT)
O/o the District Magistrate
(North)
GNCTD
Through:
Dr. Abhijeet Yadav, Nodal Officer
RTI
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.01.2017
PIO replied on : 20.02.2017
First Appeal filed on : 04.03.2017
First Appellate Order on : -
2nd Appeal/complaint received on : 21.03.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 24.01.2017, the complainant sought information pertaining to a Show Cause notice file no. F30(25)/PNDT/DM-(N)/16-107/57 dated 10.01.2017 issued to him by Appropriate Authority. In this respect complainant sought information as under:-
1. Copy of statement given by the decoy patient to the SDM Model Town, North Delhi on 30.12.2016 around 7 PM.
2. Copy of statement given by the tout Munna to the SDM Model Town, North Delhi on 30.12.2016.
3. Copy of the statement given by the decoy patient to the SDM Alipur, North Delhi on 30.12.2016.
4. Copy of seizure memos prepared by PC & PNDT teams Rohtak, Haryana and North Delhi, after concluding inspection/search at the centre.
5. Copy of authorization letter issued by District Appropriate Authority North Delhi to conduct the decoy/trap to PC & PNDT team Rohtak, Haryana.
6. Copy of authorization letter issued by District Appropriate Authority Rohtak, Haryana to Dr. Rakesh, Dy. Civil Surgeon, Rohtak Haryana to conduct search and seize.
7. Copy of authorization letter issued by District Appropriate Authority North Delhi/Advisory Committee to conduct search and seizure at the above said centre.
Nodal Officer /PC & PNDT/North District vide letter dated 20.02.2017 replied as under:-
"..........the matter was considered in DAC as approved by District Appropriate Authority in a DAC meeting held on 27.01.2017 and a request letter was sent accordingly to the Investigating Officer at PS-Alipur, to furnish the documents as recommended by DAC and approved by DAA North.
As received from the IO, following 411 pages (enclosed) are hereby provided to you. In case you want to file a supplementary reply after receipt of the documents enclosed, you may do so latest by 28.03.2017."
Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the complainant filed first appeal and same remained unheard. Feeling aggrieved as not received information, the complainant approached the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
At 11:10 am:
The complainant is absent despite notice. The respondent is present and heard. Narrating the backdrop of the case, the respondent submits that a trap was laid by a team from Haryana under the provisions of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, 1994. A decoy patient was sent to M/s North Delhi Advanced Diagnostics & MRI Center, Delhi. He submits that the raid was being conducted by team from Rohtak Haryana and the team constituted by District Magistrate (North Delhi) merely accompanied the outstation team from Narela to Model Town. Upon pre natal sex determination of the decoy lady at the diagnostic centre; equipment was sealed in presence of SDM Model Town. He submits that the records of raid are held by Civil Surgeon, Rohtak Haryana and information spanning across 411 pages as available with office of DM, North Delhi has already been furnished to the complainant.
At 11:20 am:
After the case was heard, one Mr. Lenin Vinober appeared and stated to be authorized representative of complainant. However, he has not produced any valid authorization from the complainant and the request to represent the complaint is disallowed.
Decision:
After hearing the respondent and perusal of record, the Commission finds that information as available with respondent has been furnished to the complainant. No precise ground to entertain the present complaint is thus made out. The complaint is disposed of.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer