Central Information Commission
Mr.Jagmohan Singh Sodhi 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/2011/000722/12487
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000722
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Jagmohan Singh Sodhi
Tawa Office, Park Avenue Sheikh Sarai,
SFS I, New Delhi -110017.
Respondent : Mr. J. D. Sharma
Public Information Officer & AC (SZ), Municipal Corporation of Delhi O/o the Assistant Commissioner (South Zone) Green Park, Arvindo Marg, Near Uphar Cinema, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 25/10/2010 PIO replied : 13/12/2010 First appeal filed on : 21/12/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 05/01/2011 Second Appeal received on : 14/03/2011 Notice of Hearing sent on : 25/04/2011 Hearing held on : 24/05/2011 Sl. Information Sought by RTI : PIO Replied :
1. Has MCD (SZ) decided in principle to remove the Not yet.
above unauthorized Friday Bazaar.
2. If yes, when can we expect the MCD (SZ) to issue As above.
necessary orders to the Police to ensure that the Friday Market is not held at the present location? Please indicate date.
3. If No, please indicate the reasons for not taking For immediate removal of weekly bazaar, some action against an unauthorized activity. alternate site has to be located which is not in sight at present, hence, without alternate site the action of removal is tantamount to attract heavy resistance and pressure from every nook and corner as the step is bound to affect their livelihood directly. They shall be prohibited as and when suitable alternative site is available.
4. Why is RWA not consulted before allocating Site was not allotted by MCD, hence, question of weekly market sites when the residents are consultation with RWA does not arise. most affected by this unilateral action which later leads to complaints?
Grounds of the First Appeal:
Provided information is unsatisfactory, incorrect and incomplete. Order of the FAA:
"PIO/AC stated that the reply/information to the appellant has already been provided as per records available in office. However, the appellant was not satisfied with the reply of PIO. Decision: Submissions of PIO and appellant written queries have been examined. PIO/AC is directed take up the matter with the Local Police Authorities and with representative of the weekly bazaar and to send complete information to the appellant within 4 weeks. Appeal-stands disposed off accordingly."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information not provided by PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Jagmohan Singh Sodhi;
Respondent : Mr. J. D. Sharma, Public Information Officer & AC (SZ);
The PIO has not provided any information after the order of the FAA. The FAA had clearly directed the PIO to provide information to the appellant within 04 weeks of his order on 05/01/2011.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information including all file notings as per the directions of the FAA to the Appellant before 30 May 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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 14 June 2011 at 11.00am 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.
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 24 May 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MC)