Central Information Commission
Smt.Madhu Chauhan vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 28 June, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000943/7934Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000943
Appellant : Smt. Madhu Chauhan
B-322, Saraswati Vihar,
Pitam Pura,
New Delhi-110034
Respondent : Mr. N. C. Sharma
Public Information Officer & SE(RH-I) O/o Suptdg. Engineer (RH-I) Municipal Corporation of Delhi Rohini Zone, Sector-5, Delhi-110085.
RTI application filed on : 28/08/2009
PIO replied : 30/09/2009
First Appeal filed on : 24/02/2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal Received on : 15/04/2010
Sl.No Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. Appellant mentioned about her ownership of Property It does not pertain to this
B-322, Saraswati Vihar, Pitam Pura, New Delhi-34 department.
enclosing the copy of conveyed deed
2. Garage of the mentioned property was sealed by MCD, No question.
on 27/02/2008 on account of misuse.
3. The Appellant wanted to inspect the file of the In this regard the applicant is
mentioned property regarding that sealing including requested to attend this office
the complaints made against said property, and wanted on any working day between 2
the copies of those complaints and related documents. to 5 PM and may inspect the
record.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Inspection not facilitated by the PIO saying that the file was traceable.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Inspection not facilitated and concerned documents were not provided. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 01 June 2010:
"The following were present Appellant: Ms. Minakshi Chauhan representing Smt. Madhu Chauhan; Respondent: Mr. P. R. Meena on behalf of Mr. N. C. Sharma, PIO & SE (RH-I);
The First Appellate Authority Mr.V. K. Gupta, Dy. Commissioner appears to be guilty of dereliction of duty since he does not appear to have passed any order in the matter.
The appellant states that she approached the office of the PIO on 20/10/2009, 26/10/2009 & 04/11/2009 and met Mr. P. K. Chauhan and Mr. S. K. Chauhan to make an inspection of the file. She claims that she was told that the file is not traceable. She also told that she had sent a reminder letter on 08/12/2009 to the PIO but got no response. The Respondent has brought the file and shown it to the Appellant and also provided a photocopy of the file consisting of 6 pages, which has been provided to the appellant before the Commission. It is significant that the FAA did not hear the matter where the appellant was only stating that the inspection of the file was not being done.
In the papers given to the Appellant there is no copy of any written complaint having been made with regard to any activities in the garage. This has been confirmed by the respondent who states that there was no written complaint on the record."
Commission's Decision dated 01 June 2010:
"The appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided to the appellant.
The First Appellate Authority Mr.V. K. Gupta, Dy. Commissioner is directed to present himself before the Commission with his explanation on 28 June 2010 at 4.30pm to showcause why the Commission should not recommend disciplinary action against him for dereliction of duty.
The issue before the Commission is of not facilitating the inspection by Mr. P. K. Chauhan and Mr. S. K. Chauhan within 30 days as required by the law. It appears that actions of Mr. P. K. Chauhan and Mr. S. K. Chauhan 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. P. K. Chauhan and Mr. S. K. Chauhan will present themselves before the Commission at the above address on 28 June 2010 at 4.30pm alongwith their written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1).
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."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 01 June 2010:
The following were present Appellant: Ms. Minakshi Chauhan representing Smt. Madhu Chauhan; Respondent: Mr. V. K. Gupta, FAA and Dy. Commissioner; Mr. S. K. Chauhan, AE; Mr. P. K. Chauhan, JE;
The FAA Mr. V. K. Gupta states that he did not conduct the hearing for the appeal since the case was clearly time barred. He states that the PIO had given a reply on 30/09/2009 and the appeal was filed on 24/02/2010 whereas an appeal must be filed within 30 days. The Commission accepts this explanation of the First Appellate Authority.
The Respondent claims that he did show the file to the appellant and her father who had come for the inspection. He states that the appellant stated that there should be a complaint in the file whereas the Respondent claims that there is no complaint in the file. The appellant insist that no inspection was done of any file and also states that the PIO should have informed her in writing that there was no complaint about this property. It is difficult for the Commission to conclude what may have actually happened. The Commission however warns the PIO that whenever he gets an inspection done he should ensure that this is recorded and the RTI applicant's signatures taken on the inspection report. The Commission directs the PIO to inform the appellant that there is no written complaint against the property based on which the sealing occurred.
Adjunct Decision:
The PIO is directed to inform the appellant that there is no written complaint against the property based on which the sealing occurred before 10 July 2010.
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 28 June 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj