Central Information Commission
Mr.Suneel Kr. Chauhan vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 13 May, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000648/12389
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000648
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Chauhan
H No. 86, Village Dhakka,
Delhi - 110009
Respondent (1): Dr. A. K. Rawat
PIO & Dy. Health Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Health Department
O/o the Dy. Health Officer
16 Rajpura Road, Delhi - 110054
(2) PIO/AC(Civil Lines Zone)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o the Assistant Commissioner
Civil Lines Zone,
16 Rajpura Road, Delhi - 110054
(3) Mr. Bharat Bhushan
PIO/Dy. Town Planner (G)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Planning Department
13th Floor, Civic Center,
Minto Road, New Delhi
(4) PIO & Veterinary Officer (HQ)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Health Department
17th Floor, Civic Center,
Minto Road, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 10/11/2010
PIO replied : 29/11/2010
First appeal filed on : 03/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 04/02/2011
Information sought:-
1) Provide the copy of the layout plan prepaid at the time of allotment.
2) Provide the list of allotters, giving name, address and plot no. and area of each plot at the time of original allotment.
3) How many plots were allotted in the initial stages.
4) How many plots were subsequently allotted by MCD and to whom they were allotted. Give list with names and addresses.
5) What was the criteria for allotment of the subsequent vacant plots.
PIO reply:-
Page 1 of 3The appellant was provided with the point wisse reply to his query as follow:-
1) the can be obtain from the office.
2) The information for the same is not available.
3) There is no original record available forn the same.
4) No original record available.
5) No document available for criteria of allotment.
Ground of the First Appeal:
Reply was unsatisfactory.
Order of the FAA:
A PIO is obliged to provide information which is held under the control of a public authority. He can not provide something, which is not available in a material form. He cannot provide information based on his memory or experience of working in the department.
As per the information is not available in the PIO office, so the same cannot be provided with respect to point 2 to 5.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Reply was unsatisfactory Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Sunil Kumar Chauhan;
Respondent: Dr. A. K. Rawat, PIO & DHO; Dr. Mool Chand, Veterinary Officer & Deemed PIO;
Mr. Bharat Bhushan PIO/Dy. Town Planner (G);
The PIO stated that the department was formed in 2003 and the records sought were of an earlier period which has not been transferred to this department. They had therefore transferred the RTI application on 29/11/2010 to the PIO to Town Planning Department and the Assistant Commissioner Civil Lines Zone. The Appellant has received a letter from Mr. Bharat Bhushan PIO/Dy. Town Planner (G) dated 11/05/2011, in which information on query 1 & 2 has been provided to the appellant.
This letter claims that information was sent earlier on 10/12/2010 which has not been received by the Appellant. This letter mentions that as regards queries 2, 3, 4 & 5 the RTI application was transferred to PIO/VO(HQ), MCD, 17 Floor, Civic Center, New Delhi-11002.
The Appellant has not received any information from PIO/VO(HQ) or from Assistant Commissioner of Civil Lines Zone. It also appears that PIO Town Planning may not have sent any reply to the appellant until 11/05/2011.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
PIO/VO(HQ) and PIO/AC(Civil Lines Zone) are directed to provide the information as per the records to the Appellant on query- 2, 3, 4 & 5 before 10 June 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO/AC(Civil Lines Zone), PIO/VO(HQ) and Mr. Bharat Bhushan PIO/Dy. Town Planner(G) within 30 days as required by the law.Page 2 of 3
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 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.
PIO/AC(Civil Lines Zone), PIO/VO(HQ) and Mr. Bharat Bhushan PIO/Dy. Town Planner(G) will present themselves before the Commission at the above address on 13 June 2011 at 10.30AMalongwith 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 them.
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 16 May 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SK) Page 3 of 3