Central Information Commission
Shri Vinod Sharma vs Estate Office, U.T. on 11 April, 2007
ORDER
Wajahat Habibullah, C.I.C.
1. By our Decision of 12.3.07, we had directed as follows:
The Commission has decided to treat this application as a complaint petition Under Section 18 of the Said Act and hereby directs the CPIO, Estate Office, U.T., Chandigarh to provide the information within 10 working days from the date of issue of this decision notice.
The PIO is directed to appear personally before the Commission on 23.3.07 at 5.30 p.m. and show cause as to why a penalty of Rs. 250/- a day from the date when the information fell due to the date when the information is actually supplied to applicant, not exceeding Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed on him/her under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO may in the alternative submit his/her written submission to us on or before 19.3.2007.
2. To recapitulate, Shri Vinod Sharma of Sector 22-A Chandigarh applied to the CPIO Estate Office, Chandigarh on 25.10.06 seeking the following information:
1. How many Tuition and Coaching Centers are running in Residential houses in Chandigarh ? Has these been accorded permission by the department concerned. If yes, please arrange to supply rules. If not, against how many defaulters, cases have been initiated by the department. How many cases have been completed and how many are still pending ?
2. Whether permission for running schools and tuition centers was granted up to April 30, 2006 or not. If granted, could they be fined or resumed till 30th April, 2006. If these could not be resumed then those who have been fined or resumed on or before 30th April, 2006, what action is being taken by the department either to remove resumption or to revoke the fine.
3. How many SCF exist in Chandigarh. What types of works are being run in these SCFs. In how many these works are being run in accordance with rules. In how many, it is not so. Where work is not running in accordance with the rules, what action has been taken against such SCFs. Against how many action has been taken and against how many action is still pending. Please also let me know as to which works can be done in these SCFs as per rules and also arrange to supply these rules.
4. Can shops be opened behind SCO/SCF. If yes, kindly arrange to supply rules for the same. If not, in how many cases shops are being run behind SCOs/SCFs in the city. Against how many action has been taken. Against how many action is being taken and against how many action is to be taken.
5. Can Chief Editor & Publisher of a newspaper/magazine put some chairs & table in his residence for discussions with Editors and Reporters ?
3. On not receiving a response he sent a reminder to the Dy. Commissioner, Chandigarh on 27.11.06 upon which he received a letter of 5.12.06 from CPIO attaching a report from SDO (Enf). That report, however, simply stated that the information will be supplied in a period of 10-15 days. On not receiving the information sought, therefore, Shri Vinod Sharma moved his second appeal before us on 2.1.'07.
4. In response to our Decision the CPIO Estate Office, UT, Chandigarh in a letter of 20.3.07 claimed that the information asked for had been supplied and that an appeal had also been heard on 28.2.07. That appeal, we find however, refers to an application of 19.12.2006 seeking the following information, upon which a decision was passed by Appellate Authority Shri P.K.Roy, IAS, Dy. Commissioner, UT Chandigarh on 28.2.07:
i) Supply of information indicating that how many SCOs and SCFs in Chandigarh have basement and also to supply rules/notifications indicating use of said basements.
ii) Supply of information giving details of SCOs and SCFs basements of which are being used against the rules notified and supply of information regarding status of action taken or being taken against each violator.
5. The case was heard through videoconference on 9.4.2007. The following are present:
1. Sh. Vinod Sharma
2. Shri Uma Shankar Sharma, CPIO, Estate Office, Chandigarh.
6. Whereas Shri U.S. Sharma, CPIO argued that he had supplied the information asked for together with the report of 22.3.07, appellant Shri Vinod Sharma stated that he had not received a response to his application. We had not at the time of hearing received the letter of 22.3.07 with its enclosures, which was faxed to us on 10.4.07. We had, therefore, at the close of hearing indicated that we will take our decision in this matter on the basis of the response once received and studied.
7. As it happens, we have found the response irrelevant to the complaint at hand. The issues addressed therein are not the issues on which information was sought in the application of 25.10.'06, which is the subject of the complaint. PIO Shri Uma Shankar Sharma has, therefore, been unable to establish a reasonable cause for failure to respond to the application of Shri Vinod Sharma dated 25.10.'06. He has, therefore, rendered himself liable to penalty of Rs. 250/- per day commencing from 25.11.06. He will, therefore comply with the directions already given by our Decision of 12.3.07 for supplying the information; since we find that this has not been done and pay a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, being the maximum penalty payable @ 250/-a day from the date that the information became due to the date on which it is supplied to applicant. The Commission further directs Shri PK Roy Deputy Commissioner UT of Chandigarh cause recovery of the amount of penalty either directly or from the salary of Shri US Sharma Director Estates, in two instalments made payable in the name of P&AO, DP & AR in New Delhi, and deposited in the appropriate Account Head, the first by May 3, 2007 and the second by June 3, 2007, both under intimation to Shri Pankaj Shreyaskar, Assistant Registrar in this Commission
8. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.