Appellant sought information about inspection of swimming pool requesting for hearing on priority claiming that he is a senior citizen - In keeping with the Commission’s order No. CIC/Legal/2007/006 dated 13.2.2008, the appeal was taken up on priority
This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 19.9.2014 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on two points. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he filed second appeal dated 12.1.2015 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 14.1.2015. The Appellant had requested for priority hearing in the matter as he is a senior citizen (D.O.B. 30.9.1941). Accordingly, in keeping with the Commission’s order No. CIC/Legal/2007/006 dated 13.2.2008, this matter was taken up on priority basis.
2. The Appellant submitted that at point No. 1 of his RTI application, he enquired whether Shri D. S. Chhikara was the SAI Swimming Coach in the NCT of Delhi since 2006 till date and whether he was the “competent personality / authority” to inspect and give the inspection / fitness report for the swimming pool in the Indraprastha College for Women. At point No. 2, he sought copies of the communications between the Principal of the above college and Shri D. S. Chhikara for the purpose of inspection / fitness report for the swimming pool from 2009 till the date of the RTI application. In response to point No. 1, the CPIO, vide his letter dated 16.10.2014, informed the Appellant that Shri D. S. Chhikara was a SAI Swimming Coach posted in Delhi and that the matter regarding granting of fitness report to swimming pools was not dealt with by SAI. In response to point No. 2, the CPIO stated that no such communications were available with SAI.
3. The Appellant further submitted that Justice Valmiki Mehta of the High Court of Delhi had ordered an enquiry regarding the delay in the running of a swimming pool, which is being conducted by a retired judge and that he (the Appellant) is a party to the above enquiry. He said that the information was sought by him in the above context and he would be satisfied if he is given copies of the correspondence, concerning the inspection / fitness of swimming pool, between the Principal of the above mentioned college and Shri D. S. Chhikara for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012. The Appellant also stated that the First Appellate Authority had organised his meeting with Shri D. S. Chhikara, who initially promised to provide copies of the correspondence, but later on stated that he had no such correspondence and that he may have received the requests from the college verbally. In the above context, the Appellant drew our attention to the letter dated 15.12.2014 from Shri Ved Prakash, ACP / LIC cum PIO, Licensing Unit, Delhi, to another RTI applicant, in which he stated that for a new swimming pool, the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police requests “the SAI Swimming Coach Authority” for inspection of the swimming pool in writing. Shri Ved Prakash further stated that regarding the renewal of swimming pools, the licensees of swimming pools may approach the “SAI authority” for inspection without involving the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The Appellant also drew our attention to the letter dated 30.1.2015 from Shri Rajiv Sareen, Deputy Director and CPIO in which he stated, inter alia, that the SAI Swimming Coach was not supposed to inspect swimming pools of any outside agency without the formal approval of the competent authority.
4. In response to our query, Shri Rajiv Sareen, Deputy Director and CPIO, stated that Shri D. S. Chhikara is a full time employee of SAI. He further stated that no request for inspection of swimming pool from the Principal of the Indraspratha College for Women was brought to the attention of SAI by Shri D. S. Chhikara and he appears to have conducted some inspections without the approval of the competent authority, which was contrary to the rules. Shri Rajiv Sareen further stated that because of the above, a show cause notice has also been issued to Shri Chhikara. He also stated that now that the Appellant has narrowed down his request for copies of the relevant communications to a period of three years (2010-2012), he (CPIO) would organise a meeting of the Appellant which Shri D. S. Chhikara in his presence to provide such information, as may be available. Shri Rajiv Sareen, Deputy Director and CPIO is directed to organise the above meeting on a mutually convenient date and time within seven days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. He is further directed to file a report regarding the meeting and information provided, if any, within seven days of the holding of such a meeting. Such information, as is provided, should be provided free of cost.
5. We will take a decision regarding a further hearing in the matter, if required, upon receiving the report of the CPIO concerning the meeting mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Purushottam Goyel in Sport Authority of India in File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000361