Central Information CommissionSurinder Pal Adv vs Ministry Of Parliamentary Affairs on 15 November, 2017CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                            Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka,
                                  New Delhi -110067.
                                 Tel : +91-11-26186535

                                   Appeal No.CIC/VS/A/2014/002240/MOPAF
Appellant:                              Mr. Surinder Pal,

Respondent:                             Central Public Information Officer,
                                        Shromani Gurudwara Prabandhak
                                        Committee, Amritsar.

Date of Hearing:                        13.11.2017
Dated of Decision:                      13.11.2017
                                        ORDERFacts:1.    The appellant filed RTI application dated 15.3.2014 seeking information
regarding detail of fees paid by the Shromani Gurudwara Prabandhak
Committee     (SGPC),   Amritsar   to    Sh.   H.S.   Phoolka,   Advocate     or   his
Juniors/Assistants for filing and pursuing in courts the cases of victims of
anti-sikh riots in Delhi and other places in India; detail of all cases that Sh.H.S. Phoolka, advocate has filed and is pursuing in courts in connection with
anti-Sikh riots of 1984 at different places in India. The details should contain
the FIR number with date, address of Police Station, addresses of the
complainant and accused in each case separately and the section of law under
he has been charged.2.    The appellant filed first appeal 6.5.2014 before the first appellate
authority(FAA). The response of PIO and FAA is not on record. The appellant
filed second appeal on 22.7.2014 before the Commission on the ground that
the information should be provided to him.Hearing:3.    The respondent Shri Kuldeep Singh, Asstt. Supervisor was heard
telephonically. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.4.    The respondent stated that no FIR was lodged by the SGPC and
therefore, no information on this aspect is available with them.           The
respondent further stated that vide letter dated 10.1.2015 they had replied to
the appellant on all the points of the RTI application including payments made
to Shri Phoolka or his juniors. The respondent said that the same information
was again sent to the appellant on 28.10.2017.
Discussion/Observations:5.    The requisite information has been provided to the appellant.        The
Commission observes that respondent had provided information to the
appellant very late.Decision:6.    The respondent is directed to show cause why action should not be taken
against him for contravening the timelines prescribed in theRTI Act.The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the order be given to the parties free
of cost.(Radha Krishna Mathur)
                                              Chief Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy


(S.C. Sharma)
Dy. Registrar