Central Information Commission
Mr.Naresh Shehgal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 October, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002025/9231Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002025
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Naresh Sahgal
F-71/3, Gali No. 6,
Subhash Mohalla, North Ghonda,
Delhi - 110053.
Respondent : Mr. B. S. Meena,
JE(B) and Deemed PIO O/o the Superintending Engineer-I, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, G. T. Road, Sahdara North Zone, Delhi-110053 RTI application filed on : 03/03/2010 PIO replied : 20/05/2010 First appeal filed on : 06/04/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 16/06/2010 Second Appeal received on : 15/07/2010 The appellant had sought information regarding illegal construction on second floor at building no. B-240, B Block, North Ghonda, Rubber Factory Road near Thakur Halwai of Ms. Shakuntala Devi:
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Is a Multi-Storeyed building being built on Plot No.B-240, No building is being constructed on the
under Shakuntala Devi's name, in B Block, North Ghonda, mentioned plot.
near Delhi? If yes, please provide a map of the same from the MCD department.
2. Is the mentioned construction being done illegally? If yes, As Above.
then what actions are being taken by the MCD against this?
3. Why has the MCD not taken actions according to the No construction is being done on the established procedure against the construction of the mentioned place. mentioned building?
4. Has any complaint against such illegal constructions been No complaint has been received regarding submitted? If yes, then what actions were taken regarding the mentioned illegal construction. these complaints?
5. Is a basement built/ Being built in the mentioned building? If No basement is being built/ built in the yes, then has the map relating to this been approved by the mentioned building. MCD?
6. Has the map of the building been approved by the MCD? If No map is available regarding the yes, then is the building being built according the details in the mentioned building. map or not?
7. Who are the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer of the The Assistant Engineer is Mr. D D mentioned Ward Zone? Sharma and Junior Engineer is B S Meena of the mentioned zone.
8. After receiving the letter, in how many days is any action The actions are always taken according to Page 1 of 4 taken regarding the letter? Provide specific reply. procedure established, by the MCD. The appellant had also sought information regarding another property where illegal construction is being done at C-160A Gali NO. 14. Subhash Mohalla.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Appeal dismissed by the FAA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and Appeal dismissed by the FAA Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on September 6, 2010: The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Naresh Sahgal;
Respondent: Mr. B. M. N. Rao, EE(B) on behalf of Mr. C. B. Singh, Public Information Officer & SE "The appellant states that both the construction were being undertaken when he filed the RTI application and the MCD officers have been colluding in this matter by delaying in giving the information so that the building can be complete. The appellant would like to inspect the building to record an photograph the illegal construction. The respondent states that the area has been transferred to EE(B-II) Mr. Tejvir Singh. The Commission directs that Mr. Tejvir Singh will conduct a joint inspection of the two properties and photographs will be taken and the joint statement will be recorded of the construction at both the sites. The joint inspection will be done on 21 September 2010 at 11.00AM. They will meet at the office of the PIO Mr. K. P. Singh at Keshav Chowk."
Decision dated September 6, 2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
"Mr. Tejvir Singh will conduct a joint inspection of the two properties and photographs will be taken and the joint statement will be recorded of the construction at both the sites. The joint inspection will be done on 21 September 2010 at 11.00AM. They will meet at the office of the PIO Mr. K. P. Singh at Keshav Chowk.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO Mr. B. M. N. Rao, EE(B)within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent 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 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. B. M. N. Rao, EE(B) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 20 October 2010 at 11.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
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."Page 2 of 4
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on October 20, 2010: The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. B. M. N. Rao, EE (B)- I, Mr. V. K. Tyagi, AE (B) and Mr. B. S. Meena, JE (B).
Further to the Commission's order dated 06/09/2010, a joint inspection of the two properties was conducted and a joint statement in relation to the construction at both sites was provided to the Commission vide letter dated 21/09/2010.
Mr. B. M. N. Rao stated that the RTI application dated 03/03/2010 was received on 04/03/2010. It was forwarded to Mr. D. D. Sharma, AE on 15/03/2010. Thereafter, the RTI application was forwarded once again to Mr. B. S. Meena on 16/03/2010. The concerned AE put up the reply on 13/05/2010. Mr. B. M. N. Rao submitted that there was a delay of 1 month and 8 days on the part of Mr. B. S. Meena.
Mr. B. S. Meena stated that the information sought in the RTI application pertained to two unauthorized constructions. There was delay in providing the requisite information as the said properties could not be physically located despite their addresses being mentioned in the RTI application. The Commission asked Mr. B. S. Meena to justify the reasons for giving the information late. Mr. Meena claims that he went hunting for the property and took him many days to locate the properties. Mr. Meena is not giving any reasonable cause for the delay. He also claims that he is overloaded with work.
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.
Page 3 of 4Inspite of the order of the FAA the information was delayed by 38 days Mr. B. S. Meena, JE. He has nto been able to give any reasonable cause for the delay hence the Commission imposes the penalty on Mr. B. S. Meena, JE under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act at the rate of `250/- per day of delay for 38 days i.e. `250/- X 38 days = `9500/-
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. B. S. Meena, JE(B) and Deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been of 38 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. B. S. Meena `9500/-
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `9500/-from the salary of Mr. B. S. Meena 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 `4750/ each month from the salary of Mr. B. S. Meena and remitted by the 10th of November 2010 and 10th of December 2010. The total amount of `9500/- will be remitted by 10th of December, 2010.
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 October 20, 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM) 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 4 of 4