IN IDEAL DECISION, WE WANT SUCH DECISIONS BY ALL THE COMMISSIONERS OF CIC AND SICs.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002565/9951
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002565
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Mohit Sharma,
59-D, Pocket J&K,
Dilshad Gardens,
New Delhi- 110095
Respondent : PIO & Assistant Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o Assistant Commissioner
MCD Zonal Officer Building,
Shahdara North Zone,
Shahdara, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 10/06/2010
PIO replied : (Transfer) 23/06/2010 to AC(Shahdara North Zone);
No Reply
First appeal filed on : 06/07/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 06/08/2010
Second Appeal received on : 13/09/2010
Sl. Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. Appellant requested for the names and designations of the officials with whom the complaint
(against MCD officials regarding the threatening to kill the appellant ) was lying during the non
action taken period.
No Reply
2 Appellant is requested for the period, the name of the officer and the action taken by that officer
during that period with whom the complain was lying.
No Reply
3 Appellant requested for the proof of the receipt and dispatch of the complaint in the office f the
concerned No Reply officers.
4 Provide the copy of the rules stating the time duration to be taken by the concerned officials to
deal and to resolve the matter.
No Reply
5 Provide the copy of the action taken on the defaulting officers according to the above enquired
rules.
No Reply
6 Provide the actions to be taken against the complained officers in the Appellants complaint also
provide the certified copy of rules in this regard
No Reply
7. Appellant requested for all the details of the action taken by the concerned higher officials
against the defaulting officers. No Reply
8 Appellant requested to inspect all the papers related to the complaint. If no action has been taken
yet then provide the Appellant the time period, when the action would be taken.
No Reply
9 Provide the file notings of all the officers made on the file of the Appellants complaint. No Reply
10 Appellant requested to inspect the file on his complaint .Appellant requested to provide the date
time and venue for inspection of the file and wanted certified copies after inspection.
No Reply
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No Reply by the PIO
Page 1 of 2
(
Appellant contending -- PIO transferred the RTI application under Sub Section (3) of Section 6 which isnot permissible under RTI Act. RTI application can only be transferred under Section 6 (3) If RTI
application pertains to other Public Authority. But in my case as MCD is a single Public Authority, the
transfer of RTI application under section 5 (5) is permissibly.)
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Appellant has failed to appear on the hearing before the FAA
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant:
Mr. Mohit Sharma;Respondent:
Absent;The appellant would like to inspect the file relating to his complaint in this matter. The
Commission directs PIO & AC(Shahdara North Zone) to facilitate an inspection of the relevant file
relating to his complaint on November 15, 2010 at the Officer of the Assistant Commissioner (Shahdara
North Zone) at 11.00AM. If no file has been opened on this the PIO will give it in writing to the appellant
but the complaint will be shown to him so that he can verify that there are no notings on it.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO/AC(Shahdara North Zone) is directed to facilitate an inspection of the
relevant records on November 15, 2010 at 11.00AM. The PIO will give attested photocopy
of the records which the appellant wants free of cost upto 100 pages.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on
16 December 2010 at 11.00amalongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1).
He will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decisionand submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
Commission with him.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
29 September 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(RLM)Page 2 of 2
No comments:
Post a Comment