CIC Mr. Rakesh Yadav

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)

Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001035/7966

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001035
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Yadav

52/59-A, Gali No.18,
New Delhi-110005
Respondent : Mr. Pramod Kumar

Public Information Officer & SDM
GNCTD
O/o Deputy Commissioner (West District)
Old Middle School Complex,
Rampura, Delhi -110035.
RTI application filed on : 17/11/2009

PIO replied : 16/12/2009
First appeal filed on : Not enclosed
First Appellate Authority order : 04/02/2010
Second Appeal received on : 22/04/2010
Information Sought:
i) Whether DDA is the owner of the land in Anand Parvat Industrial Area, Delhi.
ii) Whether it is legal to buy and sell land in Gali No.4, Anand Parvat Industrial Area, Delhi.
iii) Name of the owner of Plot No.4/43 or 43/4 in Anand Parvat Industrial Area, Gali No.4.
iv)Whether it is a legal offence to buy land for Rs 77 lakh and register it for Rs 5 lakh in the
above mentioned area.
v) If yes, then who all are held guilty in this case.
Reply of PIO:
The queries asked by the Applicant were not covered as information under Section 2(f) of RTI
Act 2005. Further the Applicant had not mentioned the name of the Revenue Estate so
information could not be provided.
Grounds for the First Appeal:

Information was denied by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):

The FAA upheld the decision of the PIO that the queries asked by the Appellant were not
covered as information under Section 2 (f) of RTI Act 2005.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:

Unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Yadav;
Respondent: Mr. P. C. Sahoo, Tehsildar on behalf of Mr. Pramod Kumat, PIO & SDM;
The PIO and the FAA had erred in holding that merely because information was through
questions this was not seeking information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is
important to note that Section 2(f) defines, “"information" means any material in any form,
including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars,
orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any
electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public
authority under any other law for the time being in force;” thus in simple words information
must exist in the form of a record or sample or as data in electronic form. The Act nowhere states
that if a question is framed it would not be replied. The PIO must think carefully if what is
sought is held by the public authority or by another public authority. It is important that PIOs
applies their mind very carefully and see whether the information is available or not. In the
instant case the information was available with different offices of the public authority. The PIO
is directed to obtain the assistance of the other officers under Section 5(4) and supply the
information to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant
before 20 June 2010.
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 give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him
as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 25 June 2010. 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.
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
02 June 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AG)

CIC Mr. Rakesh Yadav

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIC Mr. Rakesh Yadav

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIC Mr. Rakesh Yadav

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Club Building (Near Post Office)

Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001035/7966

Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Yadav

Respondent : Mr. Pramod Kumar

RTI application filed on : 17/11/2009

Grounds for the First Appeal:

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

This decision is announced in open chamber.

You might also like