Central Information Commission
Mr.Lalit Bhasod vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 11 April, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001285/13287Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001285
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Lalit Bhasod,
6306, Nabi Karim,
Gali Ravidas, Paharganj,
Delhi- 110055.
Respondent : Mr. Prashant Gupta,
Deemed PIO & JE
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o Superintending Engineer,
Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone,
Behind Sadar Thana,
Idgah Road, Paharganj, Delhi 110006.
RTI application filed on : 08/02/2011
PIO replied on : 08/03/2011
First Appeal filed on : 16/03/2011
First Appellate Authority order of : Not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on : 11/05/2011
Sl. Information Sought Reply of PIO
1. At the time of filing of nomination, with respect to declaration of The query is not related to C-87
assets, provide the following information with regard to the SPZ.
contestants of ward 87 of Ramnagar:
Declaration of assets in cash,
Declaration of assets in form of Bank deposits,
No. of 2 and 4 wheelers owned by the contestant,
No. of silver and gold ornaments,
Land owned by their families,
Source of their and their children's income.
2. How much money and for what activities was the money used The information sought by the
by the Corporator of ward 87 of Ramnagar used from the fund applicant is too wide and
allocated to him for development of his area. providing reply to it will divert
the resources of the office
adversely. Thus the applicant is
requested to visit the office on
any working day and inspect the
records.
3. How many questions have been raised by him in the House This query is not related to C-87
related to the problems of his area? SPZ.
4. How much money was received by him from the MCD every As per reply 2.
year for the development of his area? How much part and for
what activities was this fund used?
5. Provide the name and address of the citizens who were provided This query is not related to C-87
Page 1 of 4
monetary help under Old age pension, Widow pension, SPZ (EEM-I).
Disability pension, marriage of girls from poor family or of
widows.
6. What construction work has been carried out in the area, when As per reply 2.
was it done and by which contractor was it done by the
corporator?
7. How much total salary is received by the Mp of ward 87 of This query is not related to C-87
Ramnagar per month including the money from the MCD? SPZ (EEM-I).
8. Provide information of the street lights installed in the ward 87 As above.
of ramanagar from the Corporator's fund.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information provided by the PIO is unsatisfactory.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not mentioned.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Satisfactory information not provided by the PIO and FAA did not provide with an opportunity for
hearing.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 06/07/2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Lalit Bhasod;
Respondent: Mr. Prashant Gupta, JE on behalf of Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE;
"The Appellant states that he has received certain information from the PIOs but states that he
has not received the information with respect to query-6."
Decision dated 06/07/2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The deemed PIO Mr. Prashant Gupta is directed to provide the specific information with
respect to query-6 to the Appellant before 20 July 2011."
Facts leading to showcause hearing on 11/04/2012:
The Commission received a letter on 03/11/2011 from the Appellant alleging non-compliance of the Commission's order, on which basis the Commission issued a notice dated 28/11/2011. Subsequently, the Commission received two letters on 03/02/2011 from the Appellant alleging that no information has been received by him till date.
` In view of this, the Commission decided to schedule a showcause hearing on 11/04/2012 at 12:30pm. The Commission issued a notice dated 14/03/2012 directing Deemed PIO & JE Mr. Prashant Gupta to present himself before the Commission on 11/04/2012 at 12.30 pm along with his written explanations to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action not be recommended against him U/s 20 (1) & (2) of the RTI Act for defying the orders of the commission and failing to comply with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. He was further directed to appear before the Commission on the abovesaid date alongwith the complete information on query no. (6) of the RTI application dated 08/02/2011.
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 11/04/2012:
Respondent: Mr. Prashant Gupta, Deemed PIO & JE and Mr. S.S. Arya, AE;
The Respondent Mr. Prashant Gupta admits that he has not provided any information to the Appellant despite the order of the Commission. He claims that he was not clear about the period for which information was to be provided. The Respondent is giving a completely frivolous explanation. The order was dictated in his presence by the Commission and he has taken delivery of the order without stating that there was any confusion in understanding the direction. It is evident from query-2 Page 2 of 4 of the Appellant that the information being sought is regarding the period when the present corporator has been there. He has not provided the information and is now clearly giving excuses for non- performance.
The Commission again directs him to provide the information on query-6 to the Appellant before 30 April 2012.
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, "Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be." A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must impose penalty:
1) Refusal to receive an application for information. 2) Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30 days. 3) Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request
4) Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ' without reasonable cause'.
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request."
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub- section (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
The Commission has directed Mr. Prashant Gupta, Deemed PIO & JE to provide the information on query-6 to the Appellant before 20 July 2011. He has not complied with this order so far and has no reasonable cause to offer for this non-compliance. Since the delay in providing the information as per the order of the Commission has been for over 100 days the Commission is imposing the maximum penalty of `25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on. Mr. Prashant Gupta, Deemed PIO & JE.
Page 3 of 4Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Prashant Gupta, Deemed PIO & JE. Since the delay in providing the information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Prashant Gupta `25000/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `25000/- from the salary of Mr. Prashant Gupta and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `5000/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. Prashant Gupta and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from May 2012. The total amount of `25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of September, 2012.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 11 April 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SH) Copies to:
1- The Municipal Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
04th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center,
New Delhi
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
3. Mr. V. R. Bansal
PIO & SE
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o Superintending Engineer,
Behind Sadar Thana,
Idgah Road, Delhi 110006.
Page 4 of 4