Central Information Commission
Mr.Nagender Yadav vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 4 February, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003506/11079Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003506
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Nagender Yadav
8647/14-B, Shidi Pura,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar Dhall
Deemed PIO & UDC
Central Establishment Department,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
22nd Floor, Civic Center,
Minto Road, Delhi;
RTI application filed on : 22/06/2010
PIO replied : 03/09/2010
First appeal filed on : 03/08/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 04/11/2010
Second Appeal received on : 13/12/2010
Information sought:
The Appellant wants to inspect file no.F9(4)/88/Vig/DD-I(24) regarding wrong regarding wrong mutation of property No. 8796, Shidi Pura.
Reply of the PIO:
Assessment and Collection Department, Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone furnished a copy of the charge sheet of Sh. S.P. Tripathi AZI/UDC (copy enclosed as Annexure-III).
First Appeal:
Non-receipt of the information from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
"In the facts and circumstances of the case PIO(Vig.) & ALO(Vig.)-I are hereby directed to make available the relevant mutation file for inspection to the Appellant or furnish a satisfactory reply to him in case the said mutation file is not available....RDA file no. 1/218/88 within 15 working days. AA&C, SP Zone is also directed to get the mutation file inspection to the Appellant within 15 working days if the same is available in the A&C, Department SP Zone."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO.Page 1 of 4
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on January 21, 2011: The following were present Appellant : Mr. Nagender Yadav;
Respondent : Ms. Sunita Chandra, Public Information Officer & Assistant Assessor & Collector;
Mr. S. P. Sharma, Assistant Director (Vigilance), Vigilance Department, Civil Center, Minto Road, Delhi;
"The inspection of the relevant files was to be done by PIO Assessment and Collection Department hence the RTI Application was transferred to the PIO Assessment and Collection Department (A&C) on 03/08/2010. The PIO A&C has received this on 06/08/2010. The PIO A&C sought the assistance of Mr. Anil Dhal, AZI under Section 5(4) to provide the information. The Respondent Mr. Anil Dhal took no action on this until he was transferred from the post on 31/12/2010.
The Appellant states that a proper inspection has been given to him of the relevant records on 19 January 2011 and he is satisfied with the inspection."
Decision dated January 21, 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The inspection has been done by the Appellant.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the Deemed PIO Mr. Anil Dhal, AZI within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed 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.
Mr. Anil Dhal, AZI will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 04 February 2011 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 send the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant."
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on February 4, 2011: The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar Dhall, the then UDC & Deemed PIO A&C Department (SP Zone) presently UDC at Central Establishment Department, MCD, 22nd Floor, Civic Center, Minto Road, Delhi;
The Respondent stated that the RTI application was received from the Vigilance Department on 06/08/2010. The inspection, as sought by the Appellant, could not be carried out as the relevant file was with the Vigilance Department. However, a reply was furnished by the PIO & AA & C on 03/09/2010. Thereafter, the relevant file was sent to the AA & C Department from the Vigilance Department on 21/09/2010. Mr. Anil Kumar Dhall discussed the matter with Mr. Shiv Kumar, the then AA & C. However, Mr. Shiv Kumar informed Mr. Anil Kumar Dhall that he was suffering from migraine and was going on leave from October 2010 and consequently, the required inspection could not be facilitated. Mr. Anil Kumar Dhall submitted that Mr. Shiv Kumar is still on leave on account of his illness.Page 2 of 4
Thereafter, Mr. Anil Kumar Dhall was on leave during the period of 08/11/2010 till 20/11/2010 on account of dengue fever. Mr. Anil Kumar Dhall stated that on resuming office, he did not facilitate the relevant inspection and was ultimately transferred on 30/12/2010.
The RTI application had been received on 06/08/2010 by Mr. Anil Kumar Dhall, the then UDC & Deemed PIO SP Zone. Even if we neglect the earlier delay Mr. Anil Kumar Dhall should have ensured the inspection of the file by the Appellant before 06/09/2010. The Deemed PIO Mr. Dhall states that the file was with Vigilance Department. In that case he should have either sought the assistance of the officer from the Vigilance Department under Section 5(4) and facilitated the inspection of the relevant file or transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) to the Vigilance Department. He admits he did neither. He claimed that he sent a reply to the Appellant on 03/09/2010 stating that the file was not with the A&C Department. This was an irrelevant reply since it did not provide the information to the Appellant. The Deemed PIO admits that the file was received back from the Vigilance Department on 21/09/2010 but he still did not facilitate the inspection of the file by the Appellant. It is very clear that he was responsible for the delay in getting the file inspected by the Appellant. The inspection has been done by the Appellant on 19/01/2011. The Respondent claims that he was transferred from this A&C Department on 30/12/2010. Thus from 06/09/2010 upto 30/12/2010 the Respondent Mr. Anil Kumar Dhall is clearly responsible for the delay in providing the information which is more than 100 days.
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 Page 3 of 4 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.
Since the delay in providing the information is over 100 days and no reasonable cause for the delay from 06/09/2010 upto 30/12/2010 has been offered by the Respondent Mr. Anil Kumar Dhall, the Commission imposes the maximum penalty of `25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. Anil Kumar Dhall, the then UDC & Deemed PIO A&C Department, SP Zone;
Decision:
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. Anil Kumar Dhall, the then UDC & Deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Anil Kumar Dhall `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. Anil Kumar Dhall 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. Anil Kumar Dhall and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from March 2011. The total amount of `25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of July, 2011.
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 February 4, 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AK) CC:
To, 1- Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi Town Hall, Delhi- 110006
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066 Page 4 of 4