Central Information Commission
Mr. Umesh Yadav vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 June, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000977/3702
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000977
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Umesh Yadav, Advocate
G-75, Prem Nagar, Paprawat Road,
Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043
Respondent : Mr. Y.V.V.J Rajshekhar
ADM(SW) & PIO Govt. of NCT of Delhi Office of D.C. South West, Kapashera, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 12.12.2008 PIO replied : Not mentioned.
First Appeal filed on : 25.02.2009 First Appellate Authority order : 20.04.2009 Second Appeal received on : 30.04.2009
The Appellant sought for information regarding application relating his agriculture land situated at village Pandwala, New Delhi against the impugned mutation order of Tehsildar, Palam, New Delhi sent to PGC.
The application of the appellant was sent by PGC for direct disposal via No.PGC/2008/DD/Rev./3113-3115 dated 05/05/2008. But he has not received any information regarding the disposal or any other proceeding for it, till today. Finally, he request for the disposal report of the above said application.
The reply of PIO:
Not mentioned.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
FAA mentioned that the Appellant 's application dated 22/12/2008, he had sought the certain information from the PIO/ADM (SW) and who was said to have called the requisite information from SDM office Najafgarh. The undersigned had gone through the application filed before the PIO; SDM (HQ) may furnish information regarding the status of PGC cases within 7 days.
Grounds for second Appeal:
The Appellant has mentioned that no information was received inspite of the order of the First appellate authority.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Shukla, APIO on behalf of PIO, Mr. Y.V.V.J Rajshekhar-ADM(SW) The respondent states that no information has been provided to the appellant nor any reply. The respondent is asked to give reasons for this and he states "due to shifting of the office during the election from Kapashera to New Delhi information was not provided. Further Tehsildar Mr. R.K.Arora who is probably custodian of that information expired in April causing the delay in furnishing the information. I joined the office in March 2009 and on the same day my predecessor was relieved without proper handing over of the charges of the SDM. PA and Reader was also relieved on the same day this fact was also brought to the notice of my Dy.Commissioner. "
The respondent was asked who was responsible for giving the information since December 2008. He states the responsibility was with Mr. Y.V.V.J Rajshekhar-ADM(SW) who has been the PIO throughout the period. The respondent's statement reflects a pathetic state of affairs in the public authority. However, this is absolutely no reason for not having given the information for six months. The PIO has not even claimed that he send any letter to the appellant in this entire period.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO Mr. Y.V.V.J Rajshekhar-ADM(SW) will give the information to the appellant before 25 June 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.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO- Mr. Y.V.V.J Rajshekhar- ADM(SW) 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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 16 July 2009 at 3.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). 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. Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free of cost as per section 7(6) of RTI, Act, 2005.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 15 June 2009 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (Rnj) CC:
Mr. Y.V.V.J Rajshekhar ADM(SW) Govt. of NCT of Delhi Office of D.C. South West, Kapashera, New Del