Central Information Commission
Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 15 June, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000417/12086Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000417
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma
9561, Library Road,
Azad Market, Delhi - 110006
Respondent : Mr. I.U. Khan,
Deemed PIO & AE(B)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o the Superintending Engineer,
Engineering Department Room No.- 22
1st floor, Behind Sadar Thana,
Idgah Road, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 27/11/2010
PIO replied : 23/12/2010
First appeal filed on : 30/12/2010
FAA's order : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on : 11/02/2011
Facts of the issue:
The appellant wants the information regarding the construction of the following:-
1) 439 kashmir bagh, kishan ganj, Delhi.
2) 82/6B2, Sant Moti Bagh, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi
3) 8115 Khariya Mohalla, Delhi
4) 9986 Baldev Bhawan New Rohtak Road, Near Chuna Bhati, Sarai Rohilla Delhi
5) 9849 Ahate Thakur Dass , Sarai Rohilla , Delhi
6) 9838 Ahate Thakur Dass , Sarai Rohilla, Delhi
7) B-51-52 Subhdra colony,Sarai Rohilla, Delhi
8) 1285/439 West Moti Bagh,Sarai Rohilla, Delhi
9) 8707/11 Roshanara , Mension Subzi Mandi, Delhi-7
10) 8566 Bhargher Subzi mandi
11) 219-C Gali No. 8 Padam nagar, Sarai Rohilla,
12) 393 Bagh Kare Khan Opp. Azad Market, Kishan Ganj, Delhi
13) 197/1 Gali No.3 Padam Nagar, Kishan nagar, Delhi
14) M-49-50 Pratap Nagar, Delhi
15) 6839 Gali No. 18 Ahata kidar, Delhi
16) 6860 Gali No. 18 Ahata Kidara, Delhi
17) 6669 Gali Beri Wali ,Ahata Kidara, Delhi
18) 6940 Gali Tinki Wali, Ahata Kidara
19) 6749-50 Gali Chatee Wali, Ahata Kidara, Delhi
20) 6746 Gali Chakki Wali, Ahata kidara, Delhi
21) 6862 Gali Beech Wali, Ahata Kidara, Delhi
22) 6791 Gali Beriwali , Ahata Kidara , Delhi
23) 520 DDA flats, Gulabi Bagh, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi
24) 17/18 Railway Line Side near Zakhira Flyover, Sarai Rohilla , Delhi
25) 17/17 Railway Line Side near Zakhira Flyover , Sarai Rohilla, Delhi Page 1 of 6
26) 8289 New Anaj Mandi near Filmistan, Delhi
27) 7 Chamelian Road, Ahata Kidra, Delhi
28) 10918/9 Pratap Nagar, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi
29) 18/373 Bagh Kare Khan Kishan Ganj, Delhi-7
30) 393 Bagh kare, Kishan Ganj, Delhi
31) 152 East Moti Bagh , Sarai Rohilla,Delhi
32) 6637 Chowk Ahata Kidara, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi
33) 221/76 Gali no. 8 Padam Nagar, Delhi
34) 211/3 Gali no. 6 Padam Nagar , Delhi
35) 9894 Ahata Thakur Dass, Sarai Rohilla
36) 7594 Gali Katra Batch, Qasabpura, Delhi
37) 8772-74, Roshanara Road, Delhi
38) 8380/4 Roshanara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi
39) 17-D Model Basti, infront of Jain Mandir, Delhi
40) 10570/4 Partap Nagar , Gulabi Bagh, Delhi
41) 10709/11 Partap Nagar, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi
42) 6562, Ahata Kidara Near Dargah police colony Sardar Bazar, Delhi Provide the following things;-
1) how many complaints have been received regarding unauthorized construction of above properties?
2) the list of the same with complete address?
3) what action has been taken against these complaints. Provide the detail of each separately.
4) in what circumstances the unauthorized constructions of properties have been stopped?
5) name of the concerned JE and AE who have failed to take action against the illegal constructions.
6) the copy of sanctioned building plan of each and every properties.
7) how many are legal and how many are illegal construction out of the given list.
8) copy of the FIR U/s 466 A of the DMC ACT 1957 read with section 34/120 of the Indian Panel Code be supplied.
9) copy of the speaking order of the demolition of the unauthorized construction under section 343 DMC Act.
10) it is further more clear that besides demolition of the unauthorized construction, action for disconnection of the water and electricity supply shall be taken as per instruction contained in office order No. PSC/759/2008 dated 26/09/08 issued under the signature of the commissioner. What step has been taken against the same and provide the copy of the same.
PIO's reply:
1. As per record information is not readily available.
2. As above 1.
3. Property No. 181373, Bagh Karo Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi, 6637, Chowk Ahata Kidara, B.H.Rao, Delhi, have been booked for ulc.
4. Does not comes under the purview of RTI Act
5. No such record has been maintained by this deptt.
6. Bldg. plan has been sanctioned of P.No. 6637, Chowk Ahata Kidara, B.H.Rao, Delhi & P.No. 393, Bagh Kare Khari, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. The copy of the same can be obtained by depositing requisite fee for which you can contact the office of EE(B)ISP Zone on any working day between 2.00 to 5.00 P.M.
7. No such information is available in this office.
7A.As per record 2 sanctioned bldg. plan have been issued from Bldg. Deptt. S.P. Zone & 2 properties have been booked for u/c, rest of the information does not available.
8. No such information is available in this office.
9. As above 1.
10.No action has been taken First Appeal:
Direct the PIO to provide complete information.Page 2 of 6
FAA's order:
No mentioned.
Ground for second appeal:
The complete reply alongwith documents have not been provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 21/04/2011: The following were present Appellant: Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. I. U. Khan, AE on behalf of Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE;
"The Respondent admits that proper and detailed information has not been provided to the appellant. He states that the person responsible for this was Mr. S. L. Meena, JE(B) SP Zone."
Decision dated 21/04/2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The Commission directs Mr. I. U. Khan to provide complete point wise information with attested copies of relevant records by the Appellant before 10 May 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO Mr. S. L. Meena, JE(B) SP Zone within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed 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 deemed 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.
Mr. S. L. Meena, JE(B) SP Zone will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 18 May 2011 at 2.30pm 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 during the showcause hearing on 18/05/2011:
Appellant: Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma;
Respondent: Mr. S.L. Meena, Deemed PIO & JE(B) and Mr. I.U. Khan, Deemed PIO & AE(B);
"Deemed PIO & JE(B) Mr. S.L. Meena has submitted that he had furnished the reply to the PIO vide letter dated 22/12/2010 and the said reply was based on the information given by the OI(B) & RK(B). Deemed PIO Mr. Meena also stated that the reply dated 22/12/2010 was signed by all the officials i.e. EE(B), AE(B), JE(B), OI(B) and the RK(B). Since the information sought is related to 42 properties, it was not readily available in the office. Further the time period for which the information sought is nowhere mentioned in the RTI application. Mr. Meena also submitted a copy of the FAA's order, wherein it has been observed that a reply was supplied to the Appellant and no further direction has been issued by the FAA.
The Appellant has submitted that no information has been provided to him after the Commission's order. Deemed PIO & AE(B) Mr. I.U. Khan has submitted that since the information sought relates to the unauthorized construction, most of the files are in the office of Appellate Tribunal MCD. Mr. Khan has accepted that no information has been provided to the Appellant.
The Respondents have come without any proper preparation and Mr. S. L. Meena is now claiming that the properties do not fall in his area. There is no written records that he is able to show that he had said this earlier. He states that only 12 properties fall in his area and Mr. I. U. Khan is now saying that information on these properties which have been booked is available with Appellate Page 3 of 6 Tribunal MCD. Mr. Khan is not providing any reasons why he had not transferred the RTI application to the Appellate Tribunal or obtained the information under Section-5(4). He is directed to obtain the information under Section-5(4) and bring it at the next hearing.
The Commission finds both the officers behaving in irresponsible manner. The Commission now directs the PIO Mr. V. R. Bansal to obtain complete information on all the properties and provide it to the Appellant before 10 June 2011.
The Commission clearly finds that because of the irresponsible behavior of the respondents the Appellant has been harassed unnecessarily. In view of this the Commission under its powers under Section-19(8)(b) of the RTI Act awards the compensation of Rs.3000/- to be paid to the Appellant for the harassment caused to him and the loss and detriment suffered by him.
The Commission issues a showcause notice under Section-20(1) to PIO Mr. V. R. Bansal, EE Mr. Anuj Tayal, AE Mr. I. U. Khan, JE Mr. S. L. Meena and OI Mr. D. K. Taneja to showcause why penalty should not be imposed on all of them for absolute disregard of the RTI Act. The Commission is also likely to consider recommending disciplinary action against these officials for persistently refusing to provide the information. All the above officers are directed to appear before the Commission on 15 June 2011 at 12.00PM."
Adjunct decision on 18/05/2011:
"The Commission directs the PIO Mr. V. R. Bansal to obtain complete information on all the properties and provide it to the Appellant before 10 June 2011. The Commission will hold Mr. V. R. Bansal personally responsible for providing the information.
The Commission also directs PIO Mr. V. R. Bansal, EE Mr. Anuj Tayal, AE Mr. I. U. Khan, JE Mr. S. L. Meena and OI Mr. D. K. Taneja to appear before the Commission on 15 June 2011 at 12.00PM to showcause why penalty under Section-20(1) and disciplinary action under Section 20(2) should not be imposed on them.
Mr. V. R. Bansal is also directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.3000/- as compensation is sent to the Appellant before 30 July 2011."
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 15/06/2011:
Respondent: Mr. V.R. Bansal, PIO & SE; Mr. Anuj Tayal, Deemed PIO & AE(B); Mr. I.U. Khan, AE(B) & deemed PIO and Mr. S.L. Meena, JE(B); and EE(B-SPZ) Mr. S. K. Aggarwal;
The PIO Mr. Bansal has provided information to the Appellant on 07/06/2011 and the Appellant has recorded that he has received satisfactory information with complete records.
The PIO Mr. V.R. Bansal has also submitted his written submissions, wherein it is mentioned that complete and satisfactory information has been received by the Appellant on 07/06/2011. Mr. Bansal has stated that he gave directions on 03/06/2011 to EE(B-SPZ) Mr. S. K. Aggarwal who provided the infroamtion on 07/06/2011 to the Appellant satisfactory.
Mr. Bansal has submitted that the RTI application dated 27/11/2010 was received in the office of the PIO on 01/12/2010 and the same was sent to the then AE(B)s and deemed PIOs Mr. Sharafat Ali, Mr. S.R. Lakhan and Mr. Ajay Choudhary on 01/12/2010. Some information was furnished to the Appellant on 23/12/2010 and on 18/01/2011. Subsequently, after perusing the information furnished to the Appellant the FAA passed an order on 02/02/2011 disposing the First Appeal. The PIO Mr. Bansal has also submitted that after the Commission's order dated 21/04/2011 no action had been taken by the deemed PIO Mr. I.U. Khan.Page 4 of 6
When the Commission gave an order on 21/04/2011 to Mr. I. U. Khan to provide information before 10/05/2011, he did not comply with the order. However, on 18/05/2011 Mr. Khan told the Commission that information has not been provided since the files were with Appellate Tribunal MCD (ATMCD). This was a false statement since Mr. Khan has now admitted that only 08 files were with ATMCD. Finally the entire information has been provided to the Appellant on 07/06/2011 and it appears that Mr. Khan took the order of the Commission very lightly and did not provide any infroamtion to the appellant. As per the order of the Commission Mr. I. U. Khan was responsible for providing the information before 10/05/2011. He made no effort to provide the information and the information has finally provided to the Appellant only on 07/06/211 after delay of 26 days.
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.
As per the order of the Commission Mr. I. U. Khan should have provided the information to the Appellant before 10/05/2011. Instead the information was provided to the Appellant only on 07/06/211 after delay of 26 days. Since no reasonable cause has been offered by Mr. I.U. Khan, AE(B) & deemed PIO for the delay the Commission is imposing the penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act at the rate of `250/- per day of delay for 26 days on Mr. Khan i.e. `250/- X 26 days = `6500/-.
Page 5 of 6Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. I.U. Khan, AE(B) & deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the information has been of 26 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. I.U. Khan `6500/-.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `6500/- from the salary of Mr. I.U. Khan 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 may be deducted at the rate of `3250/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. I.U. Khan and remitted by the 10th July 2011 and 10th August 2011. The total amount of `6500/- will be remitted by 10th of August, 2011.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 15 June 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RJ) Copies to:
1- Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Delhi- 110006
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
Page 6 of 6