Central Information Commission
Mr.Parveen James vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 September, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000773/14471
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000773
Complainant : Mr. Parveen James
10885, Baptist Church Compound,
Church Road, New Delhi- 110055
Respondent (1) : PIO & Superintending Engineer (SPZ)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Zonal Office Building, Idgah Road,
Kasab Pura, Delhi-110007
Respondent (2) : Deemed PIO & Executive Engineer (M)-I
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Zonal Office Building, Idgah Road,
Kasab Pura, Delhi-110007
Respondent (3) : Deemed PIO & Executive Engineer (M)-II
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Zonal Office Building, Idgah Road,
Kasab Pura, Delhi-110007
Facts arising from the Complaint:
The Complainant had filed a RTI application with the Commissioner, MCD, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi on 02/06/2011 asking for certain information. On not having received any information within the mandated time the Complainant filed a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission. On this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the said PIO on 21/07/2011 with a direction to provide the information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The Commission is in receipt of the submissions of the Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 17/08/2011 wherein it has been stated that since the Complainant had filed the RTI application with the Commissioner and not the zonal authorities/ concerned PIO therefore the application was received in the Respondent's office only on 18/07/2011 through the Nodal officer i.e. AC/ SPZ. Further it has been stated that the application was sent to the deemed PIOs i.e. EE (M)-I/SPZ and EE (M)-II/SPZ, for furnishing the requisite information on 18/07/2011. Further it has been stated that the reply from the deemed PIOs is still awaited.
Page 1 of 2Decision:
The Complaint is allowed.
In view of the aforesaid, the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 are again directed to provide the complete and specific information with respect to the RTI application dated 02/06/2011 to the Complainant before 27th September 2011 with a copy to the Commission.
From the facts before the Commission, it appears that the Respondent No.2 and 3 have not provided the correct and complete information within the mandated time and have failed to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act. The delay and inaction on the Respondent No.2 and 3's part in providing the information, amounts to willful disobedience of the Commission's direction and also raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may be malafide.
The Respondent No.2 and 3 are hereby directed to submit before this Commission their written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action should not be recommended against them under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act for the delay caused in providing information to the Complainant. This should reach the Commission before 30th September 2011.
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 7th September 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(RJ) Page 2 of 2