Central Information Commission
Shri.Vinod Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 21 September, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001993/14293Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001993
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Vinod Kumar
H. No. 32, Pana Udyan,
Narela, Delhi - 110040
Respondent (1) : Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi O/o The Assistant Commissioner, Narela Zone, Narela, Delhi (2) : Public Information Officer & Dy, Law Officer Law Department (HQ), Municipal Corporation of Delhi 17th Floor, SPM Civic Center, Minto Road, Delhi- 110 002 RTI application filed on : 24/03/2011 PIO replied on : Not Mentioned First Appeal filed on : 07/04/2011 First Appellate Authority order of : 05/05/2011 Second Appeal received on : 23/07/2011 The information sought: The Appellant wants to information about:
1. As per record of the department, a certified list of court cases of Narela, Delhi - 110040 for the period from 1/1/1985 to 1/1/2009 in which MCD is a party and which have been decided upto 1/1/2010.
2. As per record of the department, a certified copy of court cases of Narela, Delhi - 110040 pertaining to unauthorized encroachments on streets and lands in which action of removal/demolition has been taken by MCD.
The PIO reply:
Not Mentioned Grounds for the First Appeal:
The appellant has not received PIO reply.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"The PIO/Law Department made a statement that the information in the form as sought by the applicant is not available with the Law Department and, therefore, his application was forwarded/transferred to the PIO/AC, Narela zone as the requisite information may be available with him. He also made a statement that while transferring the application of the appellant, he also made a statement that while transferring the application of the appellant, he also endorsed a copy of the letter to the applicant to file the first appeal, if any, before the FAA or Narela Zone.Page 1 of 3
Since the PIO/Law Department has already made a statement that the requisite information is not available with him in the form as sought by the appellant, no direction is given to him. However, the present appeal is being forwarded to the FAA/DC, Narela Zone with the request to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and decide the Appeal as per provisions of RTI Act, 2005."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The applicant has not received PIO reply and unsatisfactory order was passed by the First Appellate Authority.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on August 26, 2011: The following were present Appellant : Mr. Vinod Kumar;
Respondent : Absent;
"The Appellant had sought information about Court Cases of Narela Zone from the PIO Dy. Law Officer (HQ). The PIO Dy. Law Officer transferred the RTI application to PIO/AC(Narela Zone) stating that the information should be available with them. PIO/AC(Narela) has by his letter of 09/08/2011 again transferred it back to PIO Dy. Law Office stating that the information is not held by him but is held by Dy. Law Officer."
Decision dated August 26, 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The PIO Dy. Law Officer is directed to provide the information to the Appellant if necessary after taking assistance from any other officer under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. The information will be provided to the Appellant before 15 September 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO Dy. Law Officer (HQ) 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. 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.
PIO Dy. Law Officer (HQ) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 21 September 2011 at 11.30am 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."
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on September 21, 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Vinod Kumar;
Respondents: Mr. Surender Kumar, PIO & DLO and Mr. Ravi Bhushan, JLO. The Respondents have submitted written submissions to the Commission. The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. As per record of the department, a certified list of court cases of Narela, Delhi - 110040 for the period from 1/1/1985 to 1/1/2009 in which MCD is a party and which have been decided upto 1/1/2010.
2. As per record of the department, a certified copy of court cases of Narela, Delhi - 110040 pertaining to unauthorized encroachments on streets and lands in which action of removal/demolition has been taken by MCD.Page 2 of 3
The RTI application was filed with the PIO & DLO, Law Department on 24/03/2011. The PIO & DLO, who vide letter dated 30/03/2011, informed the Appellant that the information sought was not available in the department and since it may pertain to Narela Zone, the RTI application was transferred to the PIO & AC, Narela Zone. The PIO & AC, Narela Zone received the RTI application on 06/04/2011 and replied to the same on 04/05/2011.
Subsequently, the Appellant also received a letter dated 09/08/2011 from the PIO & AC, Narela Zone wherein it was mentioned that the Appellant had informed that the information sought pertained to the Law Department. Further to the Commission's order dated 26/08/2011, the PIO & DLO replied vide letter dated 13/09/2011 that the information was not specific and was not maintained in the form sought. At the show cause hearing also, the PIO & DLO argued that the information sought was voluminous, not specific and certainly not maintained by the department.
The Respondent has clearly identified that the information sought by the Appellant is not available anywhere. MCD is computerizing its database and after this is over at some point in time the data may be available. However, the Commission after discussing with the respondent realizes that this data is not available anywhere and hence cannot be provided. In view of the statements given by the respondent the Commission accepts that since this data is not available anywhere it not possible to provide. The Commission closes this matter.
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 21 September 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SU) Page 3 of 3