Central Information Commission
Mr.R K Goel vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 15 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001478/8545
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001478
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. R.K.GOEL
B-129, VIVEK VIHAR-I,
DELHI-110095.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Room No. 90, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 RTI application filed on : 16/12/2009 PIO replied : 25/01/2010 First appeal filed on : 23/02/2010 First Appellate Authority order : Not enclosed Second Appeal received on : 01/06/2010 S. No Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO) a. Accountant (CED), A.O(E)I & DLO(CED) admitted Whatever information available with this department has that there is clerical mistake in writing the pay already been conveyed in appeal no. ID No. 62 rest of is scales in circular dated 19.09.2000, may does not fall in the ambit it RTI. kindly be informed by which date and manner such correction has been made.
b. The appellant may also be informed that after The file is under submission with the higher putting the case by PLO to Director (P) on authorities. The same can be inspected by the 05.05.2009 what action was taken by the Director appellant after receiving it back and the relevant (P). Photocopies of further noting in this case should photo copies of the required documents can be be provided.
provided to the appellant. the appellant also was advised to contact this office after 10 days, in the meantime it was hoped that the relevant file would be returned back.
c. If no action (after lapse of more than 7 months) was taken by the Director (P) (in b above) Same As above reasons may be informed for not taking any action d. In noting of P.L.O. dated 05.05.2009 there is a No false information is given. All information has statement 'there is no finance loss to any person' been given on the basis of available record, The which is wrong. Most of the officers/officials officials who were getting conveyance allowance working in Scale of P.s. 5500- 9000 and Rs.230/-p.m., their conveyance allowance is revised above especially in Mpl Audit into P.s. 365/- p.m. and similarly those who were Department are getting Rs.365/- instead of P.s. getting conveyance allowance @ Rs. 290/-p.m. 425/- on maintenance of scooter/motorcycle. their conveyance allowance has been revised into The appellant may kindly be informed the P.s. 425k vide circular No. RPA-V/CED(C- reasons for writing such wrong statement. II)/2000/RKI 128 dated 19.09.2000 Page 1 of 2 Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order passed by the FAA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and No order passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant: Mr. R. K. Goel;
Respondent: Absent;
The PIO has provided some of the information but has not provided the following information: 1- Query-b: The appellant may also be informed that after putting the case by PLO to Director (P) on 05.05.2009 what action was taken by the Director (P). Photocopies of further noting in this case should be provided.
2- Query-c: If no action (after lapse of more than 7 months) was taken by the Director (P) (in b above) reasons may be informed for not taking any action. If there are no reasons on the records this should be stated.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information on the two points listed above to the appellant before 05 August 2010.
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 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.
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 12 August 2010 at 11.30am 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. 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.
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 15 July 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM) Page 2 of 2