Central Information Commission
Mr. Shyam Budhiraja vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 4 March, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /WB/A/2008/01119/SG/2182
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01119/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Shyam Budhiraja,
5/18, W.E.A., Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005.
Respondent : Suptdg. Engineer& PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Karol Bagh Zone, Anand Parbat Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
RTI application filed on : 06/02/2008 PIO replied : not replied. First appeal filed on : 02/04/2008 First Appellate Authority order : 24/04/2008 Second Appeal filed on : 26/06/2008
The appellant had asked in RTI application for Repair/Improvement of road structure in W.E.A. Detail of required information:-
It is sadly stated that entire road structure broken during rainy season stands neglected and has been lying in the same shabby and disrupted condition. Needless to point out, immediate action is required to improve the situation. Information is sought as to when the road structure will be repaired/improved. Kindly let us have details of action plan in this regard.
The PIO replied.
Not replied.
The First Appellate Authority ordered.
"I have considered the appeal of Shri Shyam Budhiraja, the appellant for not receiving the reply from PIO/Suptdg. Engineer, Karol Bagh Zone, within the prescribed time period of 30 days.
The APIO, Executive Engineer (Works)-I, Shri S.K. Singhal, reported that he has not received the RTI application I.D. No 1468/CRTI/KBZ, the movement of RTI application from PIO to APIO is an internal matter. Once the RTI application is received by PIO, the appellant must get information within 30 days as stipulated in the RTI Act, it is a serious matter, Superintending Engineer is, hereby, requested to ensure that the information is made available to the appellant within 10 days and further enquire into the matter and fix the responsibility of the erring officer/official responsible for the lapse and report."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent Respondent: Absent It appears that inspite of the clear order by the First appellate authority no information has been provided to the appellant.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 25 March, 2009. The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
It also appears that the First appellate authority's orders have not been implemented. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the 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. He has 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 has clearly ordered the information to be given.
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.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 30 March, 2009. He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 4th March 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)