Moneylife: Pune: Tuesday,
May 14, 2013.
The CIC
directed additional commissioner of MCD to make a report on when the charge
list at factory licensing department would be prepared and provided to the
applicant. This is the 90th in a series of important judgements given by former
Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in
an RTI application
The Central
Information Commission (CIC), while allowing an appeal, directed the additional
commissioner of revenues at the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to give a
report to the Commission and the appellant before 30 April 2009 on when the
charge list at factory licensing department pending since 1995 would be
prepared.
While giving
this judgement on 9 April 2009, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information
Commissioner said, “In spite an order from the FAA to prepare the list of files
in one month, the work has not been completed and the PIO states he cannot
commit when the work will be over. The implication is that the FAA had no idea
about the extent of work. This is pathetic state of affairs.”
New Delhi
resident Kishan Lal Bansal, on 12 August 2008, sought a certified copy of
charge list of record maintained at the time of taking and handing over the
charge of record by the respective record keepers since 1995 from the Public
Information Officer (PIO) of the factory licensing department at MCD under the
Right to Information (RTI) Act. Here is the information he sought and the reply
given by the PIO...
1. Please
state that which reply is correct from the replies dated 14 March 2008 and 11
July 2008 given by you in ID No299/ADC/FL, as vide reply dated 14 March 2008 it
was stated by you that no charge list was prepared and vide reply dated 11 July
2008 it was stated by you that not traceable in spite of best efforts?
PIO's Reply:
The question asked by you does not construe information under RTI Act, 2005.
2. As you
have stated in your reply no. AO/FL/08/1295/GC/08 dated 14 March 2008 that due
to large numbers of files in the record no file wise charge list was prepared,
so please state if there is any circular/office order/notification, which
prohibits to made and maintain the charge list of hand over/takeover of record
in case of files in record? If yes, please provide the copy of the same?
PIO's Reply:
The question asked by you does not construe an information under RTI Act, 2005.
Not satisfied
with the PIO's reply, Bansal filed his first appeal. The First Appellate
Authority (FAA), in his order said, “It is undisputed that the charge list
ought to have been prepared by the respective record keepers at the time of
handing over/taking over the charge of record keeper. This, however, seems not
to have been done. I, therefore, direct PIO (FL)/AC (CL&EC) to call for an
explanation from all the record keepers who have worked in the department since
1995, as per the list provided to the appellant and the present keeper should
be asked to prepare the inventory of the files available in the record with the
assistance, if required, of earlier, the certified copy of the charge list, so
prepared, may be provided to the appellant. This exercise must be completed
within one week.”
Despite
orders from the FAA, the appellant did not receive the list of files from the
PIO. He then approached the CIC with his second appeal.
During the
hearing, the PIO admitted that the department does not have a list of files at
all and in spite of the order given by Rajesh Prakash, additional deputy
commissioner (factory licencing) and FAA on 21 October 2008 to prepare the list
of files in one month, the work has not been completed.
GK Khanna,
superintendent at the factory licencing stated that they are doing the job but
cannot commit when the work will be over. “The implication is that Rajesh
Prakash, the additional deputy commissioner (factory licencing) and FAA had no
idea about the extent of the work,” Mr Gandhi, the then CIC noted.
In view of
this pathetic state of affairs, he then directed PS Tomar, additional
commissioner for Revenues, to make a report on when the work would be over and
the information provided to the appellant.
Bansal also
contended that he was give false information in his previous two RTI
applications. The Commission then looked into the replies and found that same
reply was given in both cases.
“In one
answer the PIO has tried to explain the reasons for the non-existence of the
charge list and in the second he has stated that the charge list is not
traceable. Both have provided the same information that the charge list is not
in existence,” Mr Gandhi noted.
Bansal
insisted that a penalty must be imposed on the PIO. However, the Commission
said there was no merit in this demand.
.JPG)
.JPG)
