CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002669/10118 Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002669 Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Badi C/o Ms. Usha Verma 56-58, North Avenue, New Delhi - 110001.
Respondent : Mr. Mukul Koranga Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary (Home) General Govt. of NCT of Delhi Home (General) Department, 5th Level, A-Wing, Delhi Sectt., I. P. Estate, Delhi. RTI application filed on : 10/02/2010 PIO replied : 19/03/2010 First appeal filed on : 29/04/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 24/05/2010 Second Appeal received on : 24/09/2010 Notice of Hearing sent on : 19/10/2010 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO 1. Number of members of Parliament who had As per record available only one representation for extension applied for extension of All India Area of area validity from Delhi to All India in respect of NIB arm Validity of their NFB Arm Licenses during license of the Appellant was received on 30-3-2009 from
the period from 1-01-2009 to 16-05-2009 in Ministry of Home Affairs vide dated 20-3-2009 and from the Delhi and details thereof. office of Honble L,G. vide U.O. dated 27-4-2009 received in this office on 29-4-2009 without any supporting documents.. However both were forwarded to Addl.C.P/Lic vide this office letter dated 21-4-2009 and 13-5-2009. But the actual proposal with all required documents with recommendations from Addl.C.P./Lic was received on 21-7-2009. In view of this it can be said that no application in respect of any Member of Parliament for extension of area validity of arm license was received during the period from 01-1-2009 to 16- 5-2009 from the office of Addl.C.P/Lic with recommendations.
2. Number of NPB Arm Licenses of members As per record available no sitting Member of Parliament ever of Parliament who had not been granted All been refused area validity of NPB arm license as the Member India validity during the period of 1" of Parliaments are covered within the old/New Guidelines January 09 to 16th May 2009 and the reason However, as the case of Mr Rajender Singh Badi was thereof. received in this office on 214-2009 and by that time he had ceased to be Member of Parliament of Lok Sabha Election held in April May 2009 and therefore his case was not found with in the guidelines to allow area validity for All India.Page 1 of 3
3. Number of complaints which have been Not replied received in the Minisy of Home Affairs, Govt of India regarding false, fabricated, illegal guidelines from various Members of Parliament, NGO, and individual regarding extension of All India Area Validity of NPB Arm Licenses in Delhi and details thereof.
And details of action which has been taken on these complaints along with copy of action taken on these complaints
4. Number of letters received in Ministry of Not replied Home Affairs, Govt of India regarding extension of my Arm Licences No NDCH/10/2009/330 from Delhi to All India through various Members of Parliament and myself and details of action that has been taken by the Ministry of Home, Govt of India.
5. Reason for not taking action in regard to the Representation for extension of area validity from Delhi to validity of the Arm License of the All India in respect of NPB arm license of Shri Rajinder Appellant. Kumar Badi then MP, was received on 30-3-2009 from Ministry of Home Affairs vide dated 20-3-2009 and from the office of Hon'ble LG vide U.O. dated 27-4-2009 received in this office on 29-4-2009 without any supporting documents. However both were forwarded to Addl.C.P/Lic vide this office letter dated 21-4-2009 and 13-5-2009. But the actual proposal with all required documents with recommendations from Addl.C.P/Lic was received on 21-7-2009 and by that time the applicant had ceased to be a Member of Parliament after the Lok Sabha elections held in April/May 2009 and therefore case was not found within guidelines.
6. Whether Addl. Commissioner of Licensing So far as action taken by the GNCT of Delhi on the Delhi has recommended All India Validity Appellant's case for extension of area validity, on receiving of the Appellant's Arm License to GNCT the case from the Licensing branch, Delhi Police is Delhi and Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. concerned, the copy of relevant note sheet about the of India. If yes, then copy of the examination of the case had been given (enclosed). recommendation of AddI. Commissioner Licensing and details of action that has been taken by GNCT Delhi and Ministry of Home Affairs Govt. of India.
7. Reason for not granting the validity of thy As the case was not found within the guidelines therefore the Arm License of the Appellant till date. same was not recommended and decision of the Hon' ble Lt.
Governor of Delhi as per practice has already been communicated to the Licensing branch of Delhi Police in the month of October 2009 with the request to inform the applicant also.
8. Details of action taken on the Appellant's No irregularity as alleged has been found In the department.
complaint regarding heavy corruption and All the official/officers of Home Department followed due irregularity in procedure and there was no lapse or irregularity as alleged Deptt. Of Home, GNCT Delhi by Ministry has been found on the part of any official/officer. Therefore of Home Affairs, and U. Governor no action is required. Secretariat.
9 Reason for not lodging FIR against the Since no fabricated or illegal guidelines were available with Page 2 of 3 corruption and accused officer in the Deptt the state government, therefore no question of taking any Of Home, GNCT Delhi. action against any official/ officer or registering of any FIR arose. However, the reply to the Appellant's letter given by the LG Delhi had been given (enclosed).
10. Details of action that has been taken on the Your letter dated 03-3-2009 & 24-3-2009 received from the Appellant's letter by Lt. Governor and office of LG. vide UO. dated 16-3-2009 and dated 27-4-2009 Administration on All India validity of my were forwarded to Addl.CP/Lic vide letter dated 31-3-2009 Arm Licenses along with copy of action & 13-52009 respectively for necessary action. (Copy taken report. enclosed) First Appeal:
Incomplete information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA in his order concurred with the reply given by the PIO.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unfair disposal of the Appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. J. K. Sharma representing Mr. Rajendra Kumar Badi; Respondent : Mr. Mukul Koranga, Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary (Home) General;
The Respondent has informed the Appellant that Mr. Rajendra Kumar Badi's application for extension of his Armed License for All India Validity had not been accepted by the Lt. Governor of Delhi. The Appellant has shown the Commission that in its decision CIC/SG/A/2010/002368/9619 of 05/10/2010 it has recorded that the PIO of LG's office had informed him that vide letter no. 13/83/2009/HG4964 the Lt. Governor of Delhi had approved the said extension on 11/09/2009.
The Respondent had produced before the Commission a file noting in which in the first two pages the noting appears to be mentioning that recommendation has been made for extension of the Arms License of Mr. Rajendra Kumar Badi. Whereas in the next page the note ends by stating that Mr. Rajendra Kumar Badi is not in the list of sitting MPs of Lok Sabha and hence by implication not eligible for getting extension for area validity of NPB Arms License for All India. This has been signed by Mr. Mukul Koranga and the Principle Secretary(Home) Mr. G. S. Patnayak has written, "Case is not covered under the Old/New Guidelines." Below this is a signature of the Lt. Governor of Delhi on 11/09/2009. In view of this the Commission does not think that the PIO had given any false information to the Appellant.
The Appeal is disposed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 22 November 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ) Page 3 of 3