Central Information Commission
Mr. Karam Chand vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 7 December, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002776/5747
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002776
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Karam Chand
S/o Late Sh. Khem Chand,
1/603, 2nd Floor, Hamilton road, Kashmere
Gate, Delhi - 110006
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi O/o the SE, Civil Live Zone, 16, Raj Pur Road, Delhi - 110054 RTI application filed on : 12/05/2009 PIO replied : 08/07/2009 First appeal filed on : 15/06/2009, 03/08/2009 First Appellate Authority order : 19/09/2009 Second Appeal received on : 07/10/2009 S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO (after first appeal was filed)
1. No. of towers erected by Aircel and 3 Towers were erected by Aircel and Indus Company from January 2008 none by Indus. till April 2009 and the Addresses 1. B4/2, Model town dated 05/02/2009. and detailed information regarding 2.9, LSC, Bhai Parmanand Colony dated permission granted to the same. 24/04/2009.
3.1448, Outram Line dated 24/04/2009.
2. Records of MCD containing Does not pertain to this department.
complete record, name of company, dates of permission, file no., cheque no, DD no etc.
3. Details as to no. of generators Does not pertain to this department.
allowed for antennas, towers etc. and whether as per MCD rules more than one tower was allowed to be erected on one roof and if not what action was being taken against violators.
4. Details regarding permission, MCD Permission is required. Details of policy policy, procedure and house tax for are unavailable. installation of ATM dishes and antennas for commercial use
5. Are the same rules applicable for The rules are the same for all buildings.
antennas on all government
buildings ion Civil Lines Zone, and
copy of policy regarding the same.
6. Year wise information as to amount Does not pertain to this department.
gained by MCD due to collections
from ATM Dish antennae.
7. Details as to whether MCD has Does not pertain to this department.
granted permission to schools.
Religious institutions, hospitals etc.
to erect towers on their roofs and if
not were such illegal towers being
demolished.
8. Details regarding installation Permission is required before installation
procedure of the above towers, and other information is not with this
antennae etc. department.
9. On what basis was the fee of Rs. one Does not pertain to this department.
lakh collected for the same.
10. Copy of the MCD policy regarding Does not pertain to this department.
regulation of the companies erecting
such cellular towers and poles.
11. Request for inspection of towers, Inspection was allowed.
poles and antennae etc. situated on:
a) Property no. 725-726,
Chhota Bazar, Kashmere
Gate.
b) Property no. 6, Rajendra
Market, BPCL Petrol Pump.
c) Shop no. 5, Gokhale market.
d) Shop No. 1058-59, Bara
Bazar, Chaddha Motor
Market Kashmere Gate.
First Appeal:
15/06/2009: No information provided by the PIO 03/08/2009: Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA directed the PIO to provide a proper and point wise reply to the Appellant within 10 days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
That the Appellant has still not been supplied with the proper information. Decision:
The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. The Appellant filed an RTI Application on 12/05/2009 which was received by the office of the Superintending Engineer, Civil Lines Zone on 12/05/2009 (as evidenced by the stamp). The Appellant did not receive any response from the PIO and subsequently filed a First Appeal on 15/06/2009. He received a reply from Mr. Ranvir Singh, the PIO & SE, CLZ on 08/07/2009. He filed another First Appeal on 03/08/2009 as he was dissatisfied with the reply of the PIO. The First Appellate Authority held a hearing in this matter on 17/08/2009 during which the Appellant and Mr. Ranvir Singh was present. The First Appellate Authority passed an order on 19/08/2009 in which he directed the PIO to provide a proper and point-wise reply to the Appellant within ten days from the date of the order. Despite the order of the First Appellate Authority, till the date of filing of the Second Appeal, the Appellant did not receive any information.
The information sought by the Appellant falls within the definition of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and no exemption can be claimed to refuse disclosure by the PIO. If the information would not have been available with the PIO or if any exemption under Section 8(1) or 9 applied in the present case, the First Appellate Authority would have made an observation in that respect. However, no such observation has been made.
It is clear from the reply given by the AE (B), which has been forwarded by the PIO & SE, that he has neither transferred the Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the relevant Department nor has he sought assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act from the relevant official.
The Commission therefore directs the PIO & SE, CLZ to provide the complete information to the Appellant before 31 December 2009. If the information is not available with the Department, he is directed to seek assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act and provide the information himself before 31 December 2009.
The Appeal is allowed.
Complete information should be provided to the Appellant before 31 December 2009.
The current PIO & SE, CLZ is directed to submit proof of sending the information to the Appellant to the Commission before 4 January 2010.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that Mr. Ranvir Singh, the then PIO & SE, CLZ is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub- section (1) of Section 7 as he did not reply within 30 days of receiving the RTI Application. He 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 had clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that his actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A show cause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed to 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 4 January 2010 at 11 a.m. along with his written submissions to show 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 and for not complying with the order of the First Appellate Authority, the current PIO & SE, CLZ is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing on 4 January 2010 and direct them to appear before the Commission on 4 January 2010 along with him.
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 07 December 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PS) CC:
Mr. Ranvir Singh Through PIO & SE Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 16, Rajpur Road, Delhi 110054