Central Information Commission
Pavit Singh vs Delhi Fire Services on 30 August, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DLFSR/C/2023/141202
Pavit Singh ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
DELHI FIRE SERVICES. CONNAUGHT
PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001.. ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.08.2024
Date of Decision : 29.08.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 13.06.2023
CPIO replied on : 23.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 25.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 22.08.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.10.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.06.2023 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 4
1. Please provide me the list of documents required/ filed before the Department of Delhi Fire Services for Fire Clearance Certificate (FCC) to the constructed Building/property?
The PIO vide its letter dated 23.06.2023 had provided reply to the Complainant which states as under:
"Delhi Fire Service functions under the provisions of Delhi Fire Service Act- 2007 (Delhi Act 2 of 2009) and Delhi Fire Service Rules 2010. The copy of the Act and Rules is available in public domain as well as on the website of the department www.dfs.delhigovt.nic.in. On receipt of a reference from the concerned local authority under Rule 34, the Fire Safety Certificate is issued to the buildings covered under Rule 27 of the said rules after verification of the compliance of requisite fire and life safety measures."
The complainant filed a First Appeal dated 25.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 22.08.2023, held as under:
Applicant was asked to appear before the undersigned for the hearing of the appeal on dated 27.07.2023 and again on 18.08.2023 at 12.00 P.M. The applicant did not appear on the scheduled dates. It seems that applicant has nothing to say in this matter.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent: Shri Mukesh Verma, Divisional Officer & PIO present in person.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Complainant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date reply was not provided to him by the Respondent.Page 2 of 4
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 23.06.2023, they have provided reply/information to the Complainant as per the documents available on their record.
The Complainant denied receipt of letter dated 23.06.2023 from the Respondent.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the core contention raised by the Complainant in the instant Complaint was non- receipt of information from the Respondent. In this regard, it was noteworthy that a reply by the Respondent has been provided vide letter dated 23.06.2023 as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
The Commission observes that the reply given by Respondent has not been received by the Complainant till date.
During the hearing, the Respondent volunteered to once again provide letter dated 23.06.2023 along with enclosures within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
Now, being a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the facts of the case do not warrant any action under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act against the CPIO as it does not bear any mala fides or an intention to deliberately obstruct the access to information as alleged by the Complainant. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases Page 3 of 4 of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
In view of the above, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, DELHI FIRE SERVICES CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001.Page 4 of 4
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)