Central Information Commission
Md. Yusuf Abbasi vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 7 April, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000653/7392
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000653/
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Md. Yusuf Abbasi
C-306, Hastsal Colony,
New Delhi - 110059.
Respondent : Public Information Officer & SE I
Municipal Corporation of Delhi West Zone, School Building, Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi - 110027.
RTI application filed on : 08/12/2009 PIO replied : Not replied First appeal filed on : 18/01/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 24/02/2010 Second Appeal received on : 10/02/2010 Information Sought:
The Appellant had submitted a complaint dated 24/03/2009 to Shri Sanatan Dharm Higher Secondary School (Gujrat) and wanted following information in this regard:
1) Certified copy of the action taken on the said complaint by the department since beginning to till date.
2) Certified copy of the noting portion of the file written by the department on the said complaint.
3) Name of the officer and his contact number who made investigation on the said complaint.
4) Certified copy of the inspection report in this regard.
5) Certified copy of the rules and sections which has been violated by the said society and provision of punishment for violating these section.
6) Details of encroachment made by the society and on area measuring 2.41 acre with name and designation of the officer who helped in making these encroachments. Certified copy of the action taken against the errant officer in this regard. Certified copy of the response if any, given by those officers.
7) Whether the building made for Vice Principal, Mrs. Suman Kukral on the said land was according to the Building Plan. If yes then name and designation of the officer who passed this building plan and date on which it was sanctioned.Page 1 of 3
8) Certified copy of the response given by the department in regard to show cause on Appeal no. CIC/SG/A/2007/00098 of CIC and action taken by the CIC on that response. Date on which the amount of Rs.600/- as directed by the CIC would be paid to the Appellant.
9) Copy of the application of the said society for seeking grant.
10) Certified copy of letters written by the department to the said society and if there was any objection then the same.
11) Certified copy of the section/rule under which the action will be taken if the said society did not have the CC of the department for both schools.
12) Certified copy of the rules under which the provisions of recovery of amount which has been earned by renting the land for marriage and party purposes has been given with details of the competent authority who would recover the said amount.
Reply of the PIO:
Not replied.
Ground of First Appeal:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO within the stipulated time.
First Appellate Authority ordered:
The FAA in its order directed the PIO to provide the information to the Appellant within 7 days free of cost along with explanation for not providing information within the stipulated time.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non-receipt of information from the PIO after the order of the FAA.
Decision:
The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. The Appellant filed a RTI Applications dated 08/12/2009. He did not receive any reply and he filed a First Appeal on 18/01/2010. The First Appellate Authority held a hearing in the matter on 18/02/2010 which was attended by the Appellant and PIO & SE -I. The First Appellate Authority directed the SE-I & PIO vide order dated 24/02/2010 to provide the information to the Appellant free of cost within 7 days of the receipt of the order under intimation to the Deputy Commissioner's office. The PIO was further directed to give an explanation as to why information was not provided within the stipulated time. However, till the date of filing of Second Appeal (09/03/2010), the Appellant had not been provided any information by the PIO.
The information as directed by the First Appellate Authority clearly 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. The Commission therefore directs the PIO & SE-I (WZ) to comply with Page 2 of 3 the order of the First Appellate Authority and provide the complete point-wise information before 30 April 2010.
The Appeal is allowed.
The complete point-wise information should be provided to the Appellant before 30 April 2010.
The PIO/SE-I (WZ) is directed to submit proof of sending the information to the Appellant to the Commission before 05 May 2010.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO & SE-I (WZ) is guilty of not furnishing the complete information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7. 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 12/05/2010 at 3.30 p.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 PIO & SE-I (WZ) is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing on 12 May 2010 and direct them to appear before the Commission on 12 May 2010 along with him.
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 07 April 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ) Page 3 of 3