Central Information Commission
Ms. Anita vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 12 March, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003502/17232Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003502
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Ms. Anita
698,Gali no-9
Chandralok,Shahdra
Delhi-110093.
Respondent : Mr. Mahee Lal Meena,
JE & Deemed PIO Municipal Corporation of Delhi Office of the Superintending Engineer--II Shadara (North) Zone, Welcome, Keshav Chowk, Shahdara, Delhi RTI application filed on : 24/08/2011 received by PIO on 02/09/2011 PIO replied : not mentioned First appeal filed on : 13/08/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 12/10/2011 Second Appeal received on : 07/12/2011 Information Sought:
Please provide the information about a complaint of illegal construction of 05 storied building at property no. 398-C, Gali no.9, Chandralok Colony, Mandoli Road, Shahdara given on 25/06/2011 vide complaint no.
848. The Appellant had also sought approval and site plan of the area. The Appellant had alleged that the illegal building was being constructed with the collusion of the Police.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not mentioned.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information from PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PIO is directed to give the complete information to the appellant within 7 days. Further PIO is directed to inspect the site mention in the application and take necessary direction.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory Reply.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 8 February 2012:
The following were present Appellant: Ms. Anita;
Respondent: Mr. V. K. Bhatia, Public Information Officer & SE-II;
"The Respondent states that information has been provided on 12/10/2011. The information provided sates that the plan had been approved for the sad plot as per file no. 239/B/SH-N/11. The Page 1 of 4 Appellant states that this is false information and the plan approval has not been done for the property for which she has sought information. She also states that on 07/02/2012 at about 07.00PM the JE Mr. M. L. Meena approached her at her house and stated that a mistake had been made in providing the information and that the property had been booked for illegal construction.
The Respondent states that the deemed PIOs were Mr. Tejvir Singh the then EE(B-II), Mr. Ravi Kant AE(B- II) and Mr. M. L. Meena, JE(B-II).
The Commission directs the PIO Mr. V. K. Bhatia to provide the correct information to the Appellant on the action taken on her complaint and whether a plan has been sanctioned for the said building."
Decision dated 8 February 2012:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The PIO is directed to provide the correct information as directed above to the Appellant before 25 February 2012.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIOs Mr. Tejvir Singh the then EE(B-II), Mr. Ravi Kant AE(B-II) and Mr. M. L. Meena, JE(B-II) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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.
Mr. Tejvir Singh the then EE(B-II), Mr. Ravi Kant AE(B-II) and Mr. M. L. Meena, JE(B-II) will present themselves before the Commission at the above address on 12 March 2012 at 12.30PM alongwith their written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). They will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
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. If no other responsible persons are brought by the persons asked to showcause hearing, it will be presumed that they are the responsible persons."
Relevant facts emerging at the hearing held on 12 March 2012:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Anita;
Respondent: Mr. Tejvir Singh, EE (M)-II, Mr. Ravi Kant Gupta, AE and Mr. Mahee Lal Meena, JE & Deemed PIO.
The Commission noted that further to its order dated 08/02/2012, the requisite information as per record has been provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 23/02/2012. The Appellant states that she is satisfied with the same and has already submitted a written statement to that effect before the Commission.
The Commission observed that the initial reply dated 12/10/2011-as per which the site plan for the concerned property had been approved as per file no.239/B/SH-N/11 was prepared by Mr. Mahee Lal Meena, JE. Subsequently, the Appellant was approached by Mr. Mahee Lal Meena, JE on 07/02/2012 and informed that a mistake had been made in providing the information and that the concerned property had been booked for illegal construction. Mr. Mahee Lal Meena, JE submitted before the Commission that the correct position was what was communicated to the Appellant on 07/02/2012 (and subsequently by letter Page 2 of 4 dated 23/02/2012). He stated that due to excessive work load, he inadvertently communicated the status/action taken on a different property vide his reply dated 12/10/2011.
The deemed PIO Mr. Mahee Lal Meena, JE has clearly given false information on 12/10/2011 to the Appellant stating that the plans have been sanctioned for the said property. It is interesting to note that subsequently on 08/11/2011 this property was booked for unauthorized construction and demolition notice was issued on 15/11/2011 and demolition order was passed on 24/11/2011. It is claimed that the property has been demolished on 15/02/2012. The AE and EE claimed that they only initialed the reply of the Deemed PIO Mr. Meena and had not crossed checked the veracity of the information being provided. They claimed that the JE had also confirmed that he had checked the information properly when providing it.
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.
Mr. Mahee Lal Meena, JE & Deemed PIO had provided false information that the plan of the property had been passed on 12/10/2011 and the correct information that it was unauthorized construction was given to the Appellant only on 23/02/2012 after the order of the Commission. He claims that he had verbally informed the Appellant on 07/02/2012 about this. It thus appears that false information had been initially Page 3 of 4 given on 12/10/2011 and the correct information provided on 07/02/2011 i.e. after a delay of over 100 days. Since the delay in providing the correct information is for over 100 days the Commission is imposing the maximum penalty of `25000/- on the Mr. Mahee Lal Meena, JE & Deemed PIO.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Mahee Lal Meena, JE & Deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Mahee Lal Meena `25000/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `25000/- from the salary of Mr. Mahee Lal 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 `5000/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. Mahee Lal Meena and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from April 2012. The total amount of `25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of August, 2012.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 12 March 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Copies to:
1- The Municipal Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
04th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center,
New Delhi
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
3- Mr. V. K. Bhatia
Public Information Officer & SE-II
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Office of the Superintending Engineer--II
Shadara (North) Zone,
Welcome, Keshav Chowk,
Shahdara, Delhi
Page 4 of 4