CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110 066.
Tel.: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00830/SG/Interim Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00830
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant: Gita Dewan Verma 1356 D-I, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070
Respondent: Additional Secretary (UD) Govt. of NCT Delhi
10th Level, Delhi Sachivalaya, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002
: | 23/04/2007 | |
: | 03/05/2007 | |
: | 04/06/2007 | |
: | 16/07/2007 | |
: | 25/07/2007 | |
The PIO replied. | The First Appellate Authority replied: |
RTI filed on PIO replied First appeal filed on
First Appellate Authority order Second Appeal filed on
Detail of information required:
Information Sought.
1. Copy on CD of Delhi Govt’s CDP, along with authentication letter and authorization for private publication. | The CDP is also available on the website of this Department; hence, it is not advisable for private publication. The copy of CDP may be obtained after depositing the prescribed fee. | “ After going through the records of the case and appeal of the appellant, I am of the opinion that nothing more could have been provided to the appellant than what has already been informed to appellant vide latte dated22/06/2007 In view of the above, Appeal stands disposed off. |
2. For each of the 102 individuals name in “List of Individuals invited for CDP workshop” at Annexure – 15.3 of the CDP, information related to decision to invite (including decision to prefer over others similarly qualified/ experienced / situated). | Is regarding inviting individuals for consultation workshop was organized by M/s IL & FS Ecosmart Limited as a part of the preparation of CDP. The firm was free to select the individuals for the workshop. It may be one of the reasons for not inviting you that the firm was unknown about you. | |
3. For each of those besides IL & FS who responded to CDP tender dt. 23/02/06 information relating to decision to involve / not involve in the consultation process described in Chapter 15 of CDP. (I specifically request full information relating to decision not to invite me. Text of my response to CDP tender is in Box below). | As Point 2 | |
4. List of all others named in the list of 102 invitees at Annexure- 15.3 besides Centre for Civil society (Whose Director is named at no. 65) who have given copies of CDP with and without publication authorizations. | As point 2 & 3 |
5. Particulars ( date, number, from, to , subject) / copies of the following:
| Particulars/copies of the following are enclosed herewith: a, b, c, d, e, . | |
6. Particulars of official publication of CDP. | The CDP Delhi is available on the website of this Department at www.delhigovt.nic.in/dept/ud/index.asp. Hence, the applicant may be given information after depositing the fee as per rules. |
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Gita Dewan Verma
Respondent: Mr.Hansraj representing PIO Mr. S.K. Saxena and Mr. Manoj Kumar
The first hearing was held on 5th November, 2008, when considering the points raised by the appellant it was decided to adjourned the hearing to 14th November, 2008 at 2.00PM.
On 14th November, 2008 the following persons were present:
Appellant: Gita Dewan Verma
Respondent: Mr.Hansraj representing PIO Mr. S.K. Saxena and Mr. Manoj Kumar T
he key issues identified in the appellants second appeal on page 3 are as follows:
Does the agreement between GNCTD and CDP Consultant come under S.8(1)(d) or could it have been given with the Work Order (based on / in continuation of the Agreement) for complete reply to my request no. 5a (‘Letter commissioning CDP to IL & FS Ecosmart Ltd.”) ?
= The Commission asked the respondent to justify our Section 8(1)(d) would apply to the agreement between GNCTD & CDP Consultants. The respondent stated that agreements are matters where commercial information of the Consultant is shared. The Commission asked the respondent to give a note giving its arguments in support of using this exemption. The Commission did not see this exemption as very obvious as made out by the respondent. Besides the respondent has not given any reasoning as to how Section 8(1)(d) applies in this case.
Do CDP Consultant submissions for various stages of payment come under S.8(1)(d) or could copies/particulars have been given in reply to my request no.5b (‘Letter by which IL & FS submitted final CDP’) ?
= The appellant seeks to know if there were covering letters attached to various submissions. The Commission is asked the PIO to supply the covering letters accompanied with any of the submissions. In case there are no covering letters with some of the submissions this will be stated categorically.
Does information about ‘State Level Steering Committee’ and its procedures (whereby notice for its meeting is channel of submission and its ‘endorsement’ in unconfirmed minutes is approval) come under S.4(1)(b) and should it have been given for complete reply to my request nos.5c, d & e (records of submission and approval of CDP)
= The PIO has been asked to give the information to the appellant whether there is any written procedure for the State Level Steering Committee. If there is no such procedure the PIO will state this clearly.
Was GNCTD obliged to obtain under S.2(f) and supply on my requests nos.2 & 3 information “for each of” who were consulted or submitted EOI/myself rather than general remarks about all, as given?
= The PIO has been asked to send the letter to IL & FS asking if there was any written down criteria by which participants were selected or rejected for the work shop and provide the answer to the appellant.
Is supply of CDP on CD “subject to condition” of no publication (to me) same “without publication authorization” (to Centre for Civil Society, on website of which CDP is published and which has also distributed further copies on CD) and, if CDP copyright “is with the Government”, ought copy on CD to have been refused (to all) under Section 8(1)(d)?
= The appellant’s query insisting that the PIO must give a reply authorising her to publish the CD given to her can not be considered as a request for information as defined under the Act. The appellant is actually seeking a decision from the PIO and the way she has worded it can not be construed as seeking information under the Act.
The PIO has been asked to send the answers to a, b, c & d to the appellant with a copy marked to the Commission by 30th November, 2008. The appellant may send the rejoinder to the Commission and to the Respondent by 10th December, 2008. After this matter will be decided finally by the Commission.
Notice of this be given free of cost to the parties.