Appellant sought the marriage certificate of Mr. Jagjit Singh; Submitted that he was the witness to that marriage; Document was sought as the said Mr. Jagjit Singh was reported to be fraud - CIC: Provide the information; Show cause to PIO for penalty
1. Appellant through his RTI application sought for complete file of marriage document along with marriage certificate of Jagjit Singh. PIO replied that information desired is not available and it is also a third party information. Being unsatisfied with PIO reply, the appellant made First Appeal. First Appellate Authority directed the PIO to provide inspection to the appellant. Unsatisfied with FAA order, appellant approached the Commission through this present second appeal.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
2. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant submitted that the he did not get the information about the marriage certificate of one Mr. Jagjit Singh and he is interested in the same because he was the witness to that marriage and he needs the copy of the document as the said Mr. Jagjit Singh was reported to be fraud. The respondent authority claimed that the relevant file is not traceable as the jurisdiction of the SDM was changed since September, 2012. The respondent officer also submitted that the information sought by the appellant is ‘third party’ information. The appellant alleged that the respondent authority is hiding the file as the record cannot be misplaced in spite of change of jurisdiction and the ADM for both the SDM (Khanjawala) and SDM (Rohini) is same.
3. Having heard the submissions and having perused the record, the Commission concludes that the defense offered by the respondent authority is not sustainable and when the appellant himself is the witness to the said registered marriage, he is entitled to have a copy of the Marriage Certificate of Jagjit Singh. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent authority to provide the needed information to the appellant from the record, wherever it is available, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also directs the PIO/SDM(Rohini) to show cause why maximum penalty cannot be imposed on him for giving misleading information, raising illegal defense of missing file and at the same time raising contradictory claim that the information sought is ‘third party’ information. His explanation should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
4. The Commission orders accordingly.
Citation: VP Dabas v. SDM(Rohini) in Case No. CIC/SA/A/2014/001527