Central Information Commission
Mr.Dhani Ram Goyal vs Delhi Jal Board, Gnctd on 3 January, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003249/10756
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003249
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Dhani Ram Goyal
C-533A, Village Nathupura,
Post Office: Burari.
Delhi-110084
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
Zonal Revenue Officer (W) N-II, Delhi Jal Board Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Over Head Tank, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-110009 RTI application filed on : 21/07/2010 PIO replied : 04/10/2010 (After FAA's order) First appeal filed on : 08/09/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 27/09/2010 Second Appeal received on : 19/11/2010 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO The appellant filed an application for water They replied after FAA's order. connection on 10/07/2006, 10/03/2008, 02/04/2008, 11/04/2008, 01/07/2008, 07/07/2008, 11/07/2008, 12/07/2008 and 22/08/08.
1. Daily progress report for the above applications The application has been done in various offices such as DJB, CEO, LG of Delhi, CM, etc. Therefore the movement of letters cannot be given.
2. Details of the officers who worked on the application In the view of above, list of offices and officers with the time taken by each of them. cannot be provided.
3. The offices where the above application was received Cannot be given as the application has been filed in and from where it was dispatched. various offices.
4. Copy of the citizen charter/order which gives the time There is no definite rule, therefore it is decided on limit in which the application is processed. case to case basis.
5. The authority and action if maintainable against the -do-
officers who are exceeding the time limit mentioned in the above order/charter.
6. Can the officers in question be held liable for mental -do-
harassment as I am going through the same because of innumerable visits to the office.
7. Can any action be taken against the officers for not -do-
doing the function as expected out of them.
8. Till what time will the inquiry about my application -do-
be completed.
9. Any past history of taking action against an officer -do-
for not doing his assigned work in the expected manner.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Disposed the appeal by instructing the PIO to furnish the information in specific queries raised by the appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Dhani Ram Goyal;
Respondent : Absent;
The PIO is directed to provide the information on the action taken against the applications 10/07/2006, 10/03/2008, 02/04/2008, 11/04/2008, 01/07/2008, 07/07/2008, 11/07/2008, 12/07/2008 and 22/08/08 of the appellant. This information will be provided to all the information received in the office of Delhi Jal Board in the following format:
Date on which Name and designation of Action taken Date on which forwarded to Complaint received The officer receiving it. Next officer/office.
*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the complaint. Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the Appellant before 30 January 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 30 January, 2011. He will also send the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
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 03 January 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST)