Central Information Commission
Mr. Vivek Mahna vs Mcd on 15 May, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai,
New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000583/3286
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000583
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Vivek Mahna,
Pushpanjali Farm Owners & Residents Assc.,
A-8, Pushpanjali Farms,
Bijwasan, New Delhi-110061
Respondents : SPIO/Suptd. Eng
Near Water Tank, Tilak Nagar Road, MCD, Najafgarh, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 26/11/2008 PIO : No Reply First Appeal filed on : 31/12/2008 First Appellate Authority order : 05/2/2009 Second Appeal filed on : 26/03/2009 Detail of required information:-
The appellant had requested in an RTI application to inform him of the list of farmhouses given permission to hold commercial weddings/social functions in Pushpanjali Farms as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court. With respect to the same, he requested for a copy of documents providing the permission. Finally, he requested the name and contact information of the MCD person responsible for ensuring compliance with the SC/Delhi Government Guidelines at the commercial premises listed:
Farm Name Commercial Name
a. G-1 Hotel Clarke Green
b. F-16 Golden Greens
c. F-20 Haveli Farms
d. F-23 Amartas Gardens
e. F-24 Wedding Rose
f. F-27 Balsoos Resort
g. H-3 Nirvana Greens
PIO replied.
The PIO had given no information to the RTI filed by the appellant.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
The PIO was ordered to supply the information sought, to the appellant within a period of seven days.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. Vivek Mahna Respondent: Mr. V.K. Tyagi on behalf of Mr.V.K. Gupta PIO The information that no permissions have been given by MCD has been brought by the respondent and given to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information has been provided to the appellant. The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the then PIO Mr. R.K.Gupta within 30 days as required by the law. 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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 25 June 2009 at 2.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 15th May 2009 (In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)