Central Information Commission
Mr.Narian Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 January, 2012
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/002596
Date of Hearing : January 19, 2012
Date of Decision : January 19, 2012
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Narain singh
KU 26, Pitampura
Delhi 110 034
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
Department of Forests & Wildlife
Government of NCT of Delhi
Delhi
Represented by: Shri Tilak Chand, ACF
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002596
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication (dated 01.07.2011) with the PIO, Department of Forests & Wildlife, GNCTD, Delhi seeking certain information (identified in 9 items) with reference to "letter no. F2(331)/DCF(w)/CotID191/201011/171923 dated 03/12/2010 granting permission to prune trees." The PIO on 02.08.2011 gave pointwise reply to the Applicant. The Applicant, however, being unhappy with the reply of the PIO, filed his first appeal with the Appellate Authority (AA) on 06.09.2011 complaining that the PIO has furnished incomplete information to him. He also demanded that fee of Rs. 10/, the PIO has charged him for supply of documents, be refunded to him since the documents provided against the said amount are irrelevant and not asked for. The AA in response passed an order dated 30.09.2011 wherein he, after considering each item of the Appellant's RTIapplication, concluded: "there does not appear to be convincing reason for refund of the deposited amount as requested by appellant but DCF(West) should provide information of concerned officials in the field and of his division in respect of Sr No. 8." The Appellant thereafter filed the present petition before the Commission on 09.10.2011 stating that he is not satisfied with the AA's decision. He specifically mentioned: "Main reason of filing appeal before CIC is that F.A.A. had disallowed me refund."
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Appellant, referring to the information supplied by the PIO against item no. 1 of his RTIapplication, stated that in this query he had requested only for a copy of application submitted by Shri V.K. Mehta to the public authority, but the PIO has unnecessarily provided to him with three more applications/documents, submitted by some other individuals, along with the requested information and had collected excess amount of Rs. 8/ from him. Referring to the information supplied by the PIO in respect of item no.3, the Appellant pointed out that the PIO, in response to this query, has furnished him a copy of permission order dated 03.12.2010 allowing pruning of tree, whereas he requested for a copy of permission given by Tree officer to remove the material produced by pruning of tree. He accordingly demanded that the excess amount, which adds upto Rs. 2/, collected from him towards a copy of the order be directed to be refunded to him. The Respondents, on their part, stated that the application requested by the Appellant at item no. 1 had come to their office along with other 3 applications from MCD and that, therefore, they have supplied all 4 applications to the Appellant. With regard to item no. 3, their position was that they have only one order dated 03.12.2010 in this connection which they have provided to the Appellant. According to them, no specific order, as identified by the Appellant in this query, exists in their record.
3. Upon perusing the records and after hearing the submissions above, I find merit in the Appellant's contention that 4 pages of information as mentioned hereinabove supplied to him by the PIO is irrelevant and unsolicited. It is, therefore, directed that the PIO, within 1 week of receipt of this order, should refund the above amount (i.e Rs. 8/) to the Appellant, after retaining Rs.2/ for copy of application filed by Mr. Mehta . The PIO may also return the Rs.2/ charged for wrong permission letter for pruning of trees, since the Appellant has sought the permission letter for removal of wood after pruning is completed. If no such order was available the PIO should simply have informed the Appellant about the nonavailbility of this information. The PIO is also warned to be careful in future while responding to RTIapplications. It is the duty of the PIO to ensure that only correct and solicited information goes into the Applicant's hand.
4. Appeal is disposed off with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Narain singh KU 26, Pitampura Delhi 110 034
2. Appellate Authority (RTI) Department of Forests & Wildlife Government of NCT of Delhi ABlock, 2nd Floor, Vikas Bhavan, New Delhi 110 002
3. Public Information Officer (RTI) Department of Forests & Wildlife Government of NCT of Delhi Office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests West Forest Division, Mandir Lane New Delhi 110 060
4. Officer incharge, NIC Note: In case, the Commission's above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of PIO's reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellate Authority, (4) copy of the Commission's decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.