Central Information Commission
Mr.Karamjit Singh vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 24 May, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000745+000778/12502
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000745+000778
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Karamjit Singh,
H. No.- 114A, Rithala
Rohini,
New Delhi - 110085
Respondent : PIO & Superintendent Engineer
Maintenance Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Rohini Zone, Sector-V, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 28.09.2010 PIO replied to application on : No reply First Appeal on filed on : 10.11.2010 First Appellate Authority order of : 30.12.2010 Second Appeal received on : 17.03.2011 Information Sought:
• Details of the Budget of the current financial year, ascertained for the Maintenance Department of Ward No. 22, Village Rithala, Rohini Zone, provided by the Councilor Fund and the MLA fund.
• Details of the utility of fund for development work at Rithala Village. • According to the J.E., the condition of the lane near Kallu Dairy is due to non-availability of funds. whether any budget will be made available for the construction work or not?
PIO's reply:
Not mentioned.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply from the PIO within the prescribed time-limit under RTI Act.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"......it is found that the Appellant is aggrieved due to non-receipt of the reply within the stipulated period of 30 days. The PIO is directed to furnish reply to the appellant within 2 weeks and provide reason for not furnishing reply within stipulated period."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-compliance with the Order of the FAA. No information provided to the appellant within the time-limit specified by the FAA.
Decision:
The appellant has stated that despite the clear order from the FAA no information has been provided.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed by the First Appellate Authority to the appellant before 10 June 2011.
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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 20 June 2011 at 10.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 24 May 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST)