Central Information Commission
Mr.Mahboob Khan vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 5 February, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002691/10099Penalty-II
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002691
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Mahboob Khan
D-354, Surender Colony,
Part-I, Jharoda, Buradi
Delhi - 110084.
Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma,
Kanungo & Deemed PIO Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Revenue Department 1, Kripa Narayan Marg, Delhi - 110054.
RTI application filed on : 06/05/2010 PIO replied : Not replied First appeal filed on : 16/07/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 16/08/2010 Second Appeal received on : 22/09/2010 Notice of Hearing sent on : 19/10/2010 Hearing held on : 19/11/2010 Information Sought:
1) Details of action taken by the ADM on the Complaint dated 01/02/2010 and 16/02/2010.
2) Details of action taken by the DM on the letter no. 44350 dated 12/02/2010 and letter dated 18/03/2010.
3) Details of action taken by the DC on the letter no. 2294 dated 20/04/2010.
4) Details of the action taken by the DM on the letter no. 3218 dated 02/02/2010 and letter no. 5395 dated 17/02/2010.
5) Details of the action taken on the Appellant's complaint for which information was given that on 18/03/2010 a Magistrate (North) was appointed as IO for enquiring about the said complaint.
Reply of the PIO:
Not replied.
Note: After FAA's order, on 18/08/2010 the SDM (Civil Lines) informed the Appellant that an Enquiry Committee was constituted. The ADM had issued a details report in this regard and copy of the same had been supplied to the Appellant.
Grounds of the First Appeal:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The PIO & SDM (Civil Lines) was directed to obtain the information from the SDM(HQ)/ADM(North) and furnish the immediately to the Appellant.Page 1 of 5
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete information provided by the PIO after FAA's order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 19 November 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Mahboob Khan;
Respondent : Mr. Ashok Gupta, Public Information Officer & Sub-Divisional Magistrate;
"The RTI application has been filed on 06/05/2010 with SDM (North). The then PIO SDM(Civil Lines) Mr. Vijay Bhardwaj does not appear to have done anything on this RTI application. The Respondent Mr. Ashok Gupta took charge on 25/05/2010 and he transferred the RTI Application on 31/05/2010 to PIO/SDM(HQ). PIO/SDM(HQ) Mr. R. K. Sharma again took his own sweet time and transferred the RTI application on 23/06/2010 to ADM(North) Mr. Raj Kumar. ADM(North) Mr. Raj Kumar did not send any information to the Appellant.
The Appellant had filed appeal on 16/07/2010 to Dy. Commissioner (North) & FAA since he had received no information. On 30/07/2010 the Respondent asked ADM(North) Mr. Raj Kumar to provide the information to the Appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 16/08/2010 passed an order directing PIO/SDM(Civil Lines) to obtain the information from SDM(HQ)/ADM(North) and furnish it immediately to the Appellant. The Appellant admits that he received the inquiry report on 18/08/2010."
Commission's Decision dated 19/11/2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The information has been provided as admitted by the Appellant.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIOs Mr. Vijay Bhardwaj SDM(Civil Lines), Mr. R. K. Sharma SDM(HQ) and Mr. Raj Kumar. ADM(North) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIOs are 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 deemed PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
PIOs Mr. Vijay Bhardwaj SDM(Civil Lines), Mr. R. K. Sharma SDM(HQ) and Mr. Raj Kumar. ADM(North) will present themselves before the Commission at the above address on 24 December 2010 at 04.30PM alongwith their written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1)."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 24 December 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Mahboob Khan;
Respondent : Mr. Raj Kumar, ADM(North), 01 Kripa Narayan Marg, Delhi; Mr. Charanjit Singh, on behalf of Mr. R. K. Sharma, SDM(HQ), 01 Kripa Narayan Marg, Delhi; Mr. Vijay Bhardwaj the then SDM (Civil Lines) presently SDM (Sadar Bazar) 27-28 Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari Court's Complex, Delhi;
Mr. Ajay Arora the then Tehsildar presently AERO (AC-11), Election Department, O/o the Chief Electoral Officer, Nangloi Jat, Nangloi Delhi;
"Mr. Vijay Bhardwaj the then SDM (Civil Lines Zone) states that the RTI application which was received on 06/05/2010 was not put up to him by the APIO Mr. Ajay Arora. Mr. Ajay Arora the then Tehsildar states that he did not receive the RTI application from the dealing clerk Mr. Ramesh Sharma. It is apparent that both these officers have no competence to work as officers since they do not take any responsibility.Page 2 of 5
The Commission directs the Dy. Commissioner (North) Mr. Z. U. Siddiqui to conduct an inquiry and inform the Commission who was responsible for the fact that no action was taken on the RTI Application during the period 06/05/2010 to 25/05/2010. Mr. Z. U. Siddiqui is directed to inform the Commission before 20 January 2011 the name of the person responsible for the RTI Application floating around in the officer from 06/05/2010 to 25/05/2010.
Mr. R. K. Sharma, SDM(HQ), 01 Kripa Narayan Marg, Delhi has not been able to attend the showcause hearing because of a death in his family. Mr. Sharma has sent his written submission in which he has not given any rational explanation for not having done anything with they application during the period 31/05/2010 when he received the Application upto 23/06/2010. Mr. Sharma has stated that he did not have the information but does not explain why he did not either seek the assistance of some other officer or transfer the RTI application but just kept it with him. Mr. Raj Kumar, ADM(North) however claims that he has not received the RTI application on 23/06/2010 but only received it on 13/07/2010.
Mr. R. K. Sharma is directed to appear before the Commission on 27 January 2011 at 04.30PM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on him for keeping the RTI application with him and thereby obstructing the provision of information from 31/05/2010 to 13/07/2010."
Note: The Commission penalized Mr. Raj Kumar under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act at the rate of `250/- per day of delay for 06 days i.e. `1500/- on 24/12/2010.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 27 January 2011:
The following were present:
Respondent : Mr. R. K. Sharma, SDM(HQ), 1, Kripa Narayan Marg, NewDelhi;
"The Dy. Commissioner Mr. Z. U. Siddiqui has conducted an inquiry as per the direction of the Commission and informed the Commission that Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Kanungo/Dealing Assistant of the RTI Applications received the RTI application on 06/05/2010. Mr. Ramesh Sharma put up the said RTI application before the PIO/SDM(Civil Lines) only on 26/05/2010 which was then forwarded to PIO/SM(HQ) and PIO/ADM(North) vide letter dated 31/05/2010.
In view of this the Commission issues a showcause notice to Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Kanungo/Dealing Assistant to appear before the Commission on 05 February 2011 at 04.30PM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be imposed on him.
Mr. R. K. Sharma, SDM(HQ) has given his written submission in which he states that he did not have the information and hence the transfer of the RTI application to him was unwarranted. He states that he received the RTI application only on 02/06/2010 and then transferred it on 23/06/2010 to PIO/ADM(North). If Mr. R. K. Sharma, SDM(HQ) did not have the information he was obliged to transfer the RTI application within 05 days as per the RTI Act. Infact when it is evident that the information is not held by an officer he should immediately either return the RTI application to the officer who wrongly sent to him,- or if he knows the holder of the information,- he should transfer it to the person who has the information. Mr. R. K. Sharma was asked by the Commission to give reasons for not transferring the RTI application within 05 days. He states that he has a lot of over load of work and hence did not transfer the RTI application with 05 days. The RTI Act is the only Act in which there is a personal liability for `250/-per day for delay. The Commission finds it difficult to believe that officers do other jobs but do not undertake the job where there a possibility of personal penalty."
Note: The Commission imposed a penalty on 27/01/2011 Mr. R. K. Sharma, SDM(HQ) & Deemed PIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act at `250/- per day of delay for 16 days i.e. `250/- X 16 days = `4000/-
Page 3 of 5Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 05 February 2011:
The following were present:
Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Kanungo & Deemed PIO, 1, Kripa Narayan Marg, New Delhi;
Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Kanungo & Deemed PIO whether he received the RTI Application on 06/05/2010 and putup the paper to PIO/SDM(Civil Lines) only on 26/05/2010. He admits that this is true and states that he was overloaded with work. He has also provided written submissions in which he has stated that the PIO and the APIO were not doing their work properly and guiding the staff. The information was delayed by 20 days since Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma held on to the RTI application without doing anything for this period.
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, "Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees; Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be." A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must impose penalty:
1) Refusal to receive an application for information. 2) Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30 days. 3) Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request
4) Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ' without reasonable cause'.
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request."
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
Since no reasonable cause ahs been offered by Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Kanungo & Deemed PIO for holding on to the RTI application and therefore delaying the provision of information for 20 days the Commission under its powers under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act imposes a penalty on Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma at the rate of `250/- per day of delay i.e. 250/- X 20 days = `5000/-
Page 4 of 5Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Kanungo & Deemed PIO. Since the delay in transferring the RTI application has been of 20 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma `5000/-.
The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `5000/- from the salary of Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066. The amount of `5000/ be deducted from the salary of Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma and remitted by the 10th March 2011.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 05 February 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ) CC:
To, 1- The Chief Secretary GNCT of Delhi New Delhi 2- Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066 Page 5 of 5