None appeared on behalf of the Appellant despite service of notice for the hearing in advance.

PIO/Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Asstt. Director of Education (Vig.) has filed a submission dated 19.08.2019 which indicates that adequate reply in response to queries no. 1-4 of the RTI application has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 10.10.2017, which was also upheld by the FAA/Spl. Director of Education (RTI) vide order dated 13.12.2017. Another submission dated 07.08.2019 has been filed by the PIO/ADE(RTI), NW-B which indicates that information has been provided to the Appellant vide Page 2 of 3 letter dated 28.09.2017 and 07.10.2017, as received from the Sarvodaya Bal Vidhyalaya.

A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 10.10.2019 in this case reiterating the facts of the case and requesting that information may be provided to him.

Respondent alone is present for hearing and has submitted a letter dated 15.10.2019 indicating that appellant was provided with information from time to time, including vide letter dated 10.04.2019 whereby the appellant was advised to visit the office of the Dy. Labour Commissioner to inspect the relevant records. However, the appellant did not avail the offer of inspection of records.

Decision Under the given circumstances of the case, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent/SPIO to furnish a specific and complete revised reply answering each of the three queries, to the Appellant, within three weeks of receipt of this order. A compliance report in this regard shall be submitted by the Respondent before the Commission by 30.11.2019.

Both parties are duly represented. Appellant's representative stated that though he visited the respondent for inspection, his presence was not recorded neither any information was provided to him. In fact despite the specific direction of the FAA, vide the ex parte order dated 08.09.2017, no information was furnished by the respondent till recently. Finally information was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 17.07.2019, after lapse of two years. Respondent is represented by a UDC and he has submitted submissions dated 17.07.2019.

Decision Considering the facts of the case, it is noted that the information has been provided only after a lapse of two years. The absence of the PIO during the hearing has resulted in many unanswered questions vitiating the proceedings. Though appellant has expressed satisfaction with the information furnished, no justification has been provided by the PIO for i) non furnishing of any reply to the RTI application, ii) non-compliance of the FAA's order, iii) inordinate delay of two years in responding to an RTI Application and iv) absence from the hearing before the Commission. All of the above have led to obstruction to the flow of information and violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, it is deemed to be a fit case, wherein the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue SHOW CAUSE NOTICE to Sh. Kishan Swarup Singh, the PIO responsible for the repeated defaults. Response to the Show Cause notice should reach atleast one week prior to the date of hearing.

Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Vinodi Sharma, Deputy Secretary & CPIO, present in person.

Information Sought:

The appellant's has sought information related to his grievance which was sent to Ministry of Culture on Pg Portal vide online registration No. DARPG/P/2018/02929.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

1

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that till date no information had been provided to him by the respondent organisation.

The CPIO admitted the fact that till date no reply was provided to the appellant, however, she submitted a reply dated 25.10.2019 for perusal of the Commission.

Appellant: Present in person 1 Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Mathur, DGM (HR & Admn) and CPIO, present in person alongwith Smt. Gomathi, Under Secretary and CPIO, Shri Alok Kumar Bharti, ALC (C), Delhi, Mohd. R.A Khan, CPIO Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information in regard to petition No. DSEHE/P/2018/00021 dated 23.02.2018:

1. Certified copies of the notings, action taken, directions issued in regard to the above said petition till 01/09/2018.

2. Name, designation, section / department and telephone no. of the officer of US (PG Cell), Ministry of Labour & Employment, to whom the said petition was transferred.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Smt. Vinodi Sharma, Deputy Secretary and CPIO, present in person Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. Amount of arrears paid to Shri S.K. Pandey, Assistant working in SNA with respect to Office Order having File No. RRS/26/2015-16/5570A dated 1 03.10.2016. Also, provide Transaction Slip/Voucher Details etc. pertaining to the said transaction.

2. Amount of arrears paid to Smt. Anita Katyal, Stenographer working in SNA with respect to Office order having File No. RRS/26/2015-16/5570B dated 03.10.2016. Also, provide Transaction Slip/Voucher Details etc. pertaining to the said official transaction.

Appellant: Present in person Respondent: Uttam Kumar, Principal & CPIO, F.C Bajaj, ASO and Harish, all present in person.

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information relating to tender for providing Security & Man Power for the year 2018-19 opened on 03/07/2018:

1. Outcome of tender submitted by the appellant. In case tender has not been accepted, necessary reasons for non-acceptance be intimated alongwith E.M.D. of Rs. 15,000/- deposited with tender.

2. Name of contractor who has been awarded the contract giving specific period (category wise).

1

3. Comparative statement drawn on the basis of rates submitted by the tenderers.

The appellant's son Rohil Bahl (Roll No. 8233524) appeared for CBSE class 10th exam in 2018. He applied for re-evaluation of his papers in Maths (041) and Science (086). After receiving the result an appeal was registered with AB Cell - X at the CBSE Patparganj Office on 7th August 2018. In this regard appellant wants the copies of re-evaluated papers for both the subjects.

1

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the response of the CPIO as the desired information i.e. a copy of the re-evaluated marks sheet was not provided to him.

Information Sought:

The appellant is a contractual employee of TDB who has been suspended vide letter dated 22/04/2018, wherein it has been mentioned that TDB has received a complaint written by four contractual employees of TDB levelling corruption charges on the Secretary, TDB on appointments, misuse of official vehicles etc. The appellant has sought a copy of the said complaint.

1

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to him. Giving the background of the case, he submitted that he received various letters from CVC dated 02.02.2018 and 14.03.2018 and from Vigilance Cell, DST dated 12.04.2018 regarding confirmation of a complaint dated 22.01.2018 against Dr Bindu Dey, Secretary, Technology Development Board levelling corruption on appointment and misuse of official vehicle. He further submitted that vide his letter dated 16.04.2018, he had denied in writing both to CVC and DST that no such complaint was made by him and his forged identity has been used to defame him and to ruin his career. It was informed to him that the matter would be marked as pseudonymous and will be closed. It was also informed that neither CVC nor DST will initiate any action on the same as the same was denied in writing by him. However, Dr Bindu Dey suspended 15 contractual employees vide letter dated 22.04.2018 without any reason and a Vigilance Enquiry is proposed to be initiated through DST Vigilance Cell and CVC Cell to look into the matter. He further submitted that as of now his services have been terminated. Against the above said termination orders, he has filed a Writ Petition in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The documents/information as sought vide the aforesaid RTI Application will strengthen his case in the Hon'ble High Court.

None appeared on behalf of the Appellant despite service of notice for the hearing in advance.

Respondent submits a copy of FAO dated 03.11.2017 whereby opportunity for conducting inspection of records was offered to the Appellant. Respondent states that despite the opportunity thereof, the Appellant remained absent. Vide letter dated 04.01.2018 another opportunity for inspection was offered to the Appellant but he has not availed it.

Decision:

Neither Appellant nor his representative is present to argue the case or express dissatisfaction. Multiple opportunities for inspection have been duly provided to the Appellant but he did not avail of them. Under the circumstances, no further adjudication seems essential in this case. The Appellant is at a liberty to approach the concerned PIO for inspection of the relevant records at a mutually convenient date and time.

None appeared on behalf of the Appellant despite service of notice for the hearing in advance.

Smt. Shehnaz Begum/ third party, informs the Commission that the Appellant is her husband and has been charged in a case for cruelty to women u/S. 498-A, IPC. Smt. Shehnaz Begum claims that the Appellant has been repeatedly filing RTI applications on similar subjects, only to obtain information relating to her. It is the request of Smt. Shehnaz Begum that no information, directly or indirectly be provided to the Appellant since the same would be misused by him in the Court.

Decision:

The above 3 RTI applications relate to a marital dispute between the Appellant and Smt. Shehnaz Begum, who is a Guest Teachers of T.G.T Social Science in the Respondent school. Perusal of the 3 RTI applications clearly indicate that they are all inter-connected with each other and revolve around the same subject matter, primarily concerning the information pertaining to Smt. Shehnaz Begum. The submissions made by Smt. Shehnaz Begum further confirms the intent of the Appellant in seeking information pertaining to her. The Commission therefore holds that:

None appeared on behalf of the Appellant despite service in advance of notice for the hearing.

Respondent submits that despite being offered opportunity to conduct inspection, the Appellant remained absent and did not avail the opportunity. Respondent clarifies that the files constructed during the process of admissions, is later on handed back to the applicants.

Decision:

Perusal of the records reveal that FAA vide order dated 02.01.2018 had offered opportunity to conduct inspection to the Appellant. However, Appellant chose to not avail of the opportunity. Neither Appellant nor any authorized representative is present on his behalf to argue the case or express dissatisfaction. The information sought is voluminous, the collecting and collating of which would divert the resources of the Respondent public authority.

9. That the applicant is hell bent in getting personal information of the undersigned as well as their family members to create nuisance and the following properties owned by them:-

a. A-45, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi. b. A-49, Maya Puri Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. c. C-13, Mansarovar Garden, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. d. C-11, Mansarovar Garden, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi...."

Shri Balkar Singh, the respondent third party has further informed the Commission that the appellant has been filing cases even against the Judicial officers for not deciding the cases in his favour. He further stated that an employee of his had also been attacked by the appellant which resulted in the filing of an FIR, which is pending adjudication. Another FIR has also been registered against the appellant for committing cheating and forgery of rent receipts. He has further stated that the appellant has been making constant threats and demanding illegal money under the garb of and misusing the RTI Act. The appellant has been filing numerous complaints against the third party and even the Government authorities to settle his personal score.

Written submissions have been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 07.10.2019 in respect of file No. CIC/DELJB/A/2018/113907 and file No. CIC/DELJB/C/2018/113897 reiterating the facts and submissions as mentioned in the above background of the cases.

Respondent has also submitted submissions dated 19.09.2019 contending that there is no leakage in the DJB pipeline, but the appellant's grievance of seepage in his bathroom is due to leakage of water from his neighbour's property, located on the floor above his property. This is being an individual flat owner's pipeline defect, does not fall within the purview of DJB and cannot be adjudicated as such. It has been further contended by the respondent that similar complaint regarding water leakage from joint of DJB Booster pump causing damage to appellant's ceiling has been adjudicated earlier vide decision dated 02.04.2018 by a predecessor bench of the CIC while deciding the cases number CIC/DELJB/A/2017/185662 and CIC/DELJB/A/2017/185663.

Both the parties are present for the hearing.

Submission dated 09.09.2019 has been received from the PIO/SDM (Patel Nagar) whereby Respondent offers the opportunity to conduct inspection of records to the Appellant.

Appellant, while explaining his locus standi, states that the Shadipur land belongs to him and his ancestors since the year 1860 therefore any information pertaining to it cannot be construed third party information. Appellant has sought copy of notifications/awards issued by the Respondent public authority on the land thereof but has instead been provided with the copy of Sizra (Plan Page 2 of 7 of land) which indicates only the Khasra Nos. Appellant avers that Ranjit Nagar Colony land belonged to his ancestors, which now is known as Ranjit Nagar Colony population Shadipur. Since over the years Appellant's land was acquired and awards/notifications were issued on it therefore, he now desires to get a copy of the relevant documents.

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information relating to Security & Man Power engaged on contract:

1. Complete tender documents of successful tenderer who have been awarded the existing contract with date of commencement and validity of contract.

2. Mode of publicity among general public of existing contract with relevant administrative orders/cutting of newspaper etc. be submitted.

1

3. Category wise exact administrative requirement/engagement of civil employees engaged on the existing contract be intimated.

4. And other related information.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on points no. 1& 8 of the RTI application as the CPIO had denied the information quoting section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that after the intervention of the Commission in File no.CIC/KVSAN/A/2018/106722-BJ dated 18.08.2018, similar information was provided to him and hence the denial by the CPIO in providing the sought for information in this case is not proper. He stressed that such information should be disclosed to ensure greater transparency and accountability. He also relied upon another decisions of the CIC in the case of CIC/KVSAN/A/2017/151936-BJ dated 10.09.2013.

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information relating to the private security & man power engaged on contract basis:

1. Copy of technical & financial bids of contractors who have been awarded the contract for the year 2018-19.

2. Copy of rules/ regulations for E.M.D.

3. Copy of Basic criteria observed for finalization of existing contract.

4. And other related information.

1

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on point no. 1 of the RTI application as the CPIO had denied the information quoting section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that after the intervention of the Commission in File no.CIC/KVSAN/A/2018/106722-BJ dated 18.08.2018, similar information was provided to him and hence the denial by the CPIO in providing the sought for information in this case is not proper. He stressed that such information should be disclosed to ensure greater transparency and accountability. He also relied upon another decisions of the CIC in the case of CIC/KVSAN/A/2017/151936-BJ dated 10.09.2013.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the request made to the UK Tax Authorities for exchange of information under an agreement as per Section 90/ 90 A of the IT Act, 1961; copy of all the letters/communications addressed to FT&TR wing Page 1 of 9 of the CBDT by the Respondent Public Authority or the assessing officer of the Company at the time of assessment proceedings for AY 2011-12 in connection with exchange of information under the DTAA and issues related thereto.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 26.07.2017, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)

(a) and (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 19.09.2017 while referring to the decision of the Commission in the case of Aseem Takyar vs. CPIO, M/o Defence (File No. CIC/CC/A/2014/001681-AB) dated 14.09.2016 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in B.S. Mathur vs. PIO and Ors WP(C) No. 295 and 608/2011 dated 03.06.2011, directed the CPIO to pass a speaking order within 15 days of receipt of this order. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 28.09.2017 while providing a detailed clarifications, consistently maintained its earlier decision and denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(a) and (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Thereafter, the FAA, vide its order dated 22/23.11.2017, stated that the information obtained from foreign tax authority, for the year under consideration, had not been used against the Assessee, therefore, the TPO / CPIO was not obliged to disclose the information to the Assessee. Furthermore, the information obtained by the TPO/CPIO from Foreign Tax Authority is strictly confidential and could not be disclosed to any person. Considering the confidentiality clause and further considering the fact that the information was not utilized by the TOP/CPIO against the Appellant, the order of the CPIO was upheld.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points in respect of Tax Evasion Petition against Shri Vimal Mehra filed on 27th May, 2017, regarding the Diary Number with date on the said petition; present status of his complaint; action taken by the Department against Shri Vimal Mehra and the details of the amount recovered thereof; time limit for disposal of his complaint and other issues related thereto.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 10.08.2018 while relying upon the decision of the Commission in the matter of Shri Rakesh Gupta Vs. Directorate General of Income Tax (Vig.), denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.

1. "Rules relating to issuance of display advertisement in the magazines.

2. No. of newspaper/magazines which issued the display advertisements from 01.04.2017 to 07.11.2017.

3. Representations made by the newspaper/magazines regarding publishing of display advertisements from 01.04.2017 to 07.11.2017 including requests made via PMO, special quota, Minister/M.P.'s recommendations.

4. Certified copy of the representations mentioned in point no. 3 above.

5. Certified copy of the chart indicating rejections, approvals etc. of these representations.

6. Certified copy of the release orders for display advertisements."

2. The CPIO responded on 05-01-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 23-12-2017 which was not disposed of by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Page 1 of 3 Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act and also to direct him to provide the sought for information. Hearing: