Central Information Commission
Mr.A.P. Jain vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 12 August, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001444/13515Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001444
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. A.P. Jain
B-1/9, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi- 110057
Respondent : Mr. Veer Singh,
Deemed PIO & Assistant Director Municipal Corporation of Delhi, South Zone Green Park, Zonal Building, New Delhi- 110016 RTI application filed on : 29-09-2010, 13-12-2010 PIO replied on : 3-12-2010, 3-02-2011 First Appeal filed on : 24-02-2011 First Appellate Authority order of : 17-03-2011 Second Appeal received on : 30-05-2011 Sl. Information Sought Reply of PIO
1. Is it true that a structure resembling a Water fountain was built by There is a waterfall MCD about six years ago from the funds allotted to Shri Ashok Singh, existing in the park MLA of the area in the park situated at the junction of street B-3 and which is situated at street street B-8 in 'B' block of Vasant Vihar? B-3, B block, Vasant Vihar.
2. Is it true that no provision was made for the supply of water for running Yes of this so called water fountain when it was built and also that no provision has been made thereafter since its construction till date ?
3. Is it true that no connection was made with either the sewer line or the Yes storm water drainage to drain out water from this structure?
4. Since the so called fountain built six years back has not been put to use There is no connection.
and due to shortage of water with MCD/Jal Board, is there any proposal to supply water to this shabby looking structure in future?
5. In case there is a proposal, is there any other proposal with MCD to put This is a policy matter and this structure built with public money to use ? comes under the headquarters.
6. The name of the MLA who got this fountain built from the money Waterfall constructed by allotted to him by the MCD for development in his zone and total M.L.A. fund of Shri amount of money spent on the construction of the said fountain. Ashok.
7. Who is responsible for execution of the incomplete project resulting in Presently there is no waste of public money? Does the MCD propose to take any action in waterfall connection and the matter against the defaulter? water fall is not functional.
8. Due to shortage of water with MCD/Jal Board no water connection has There is a new proposal of M.C.D. for demolishing the been given to run the fountain in the past six years. Is there any other defunct water fall after the proposal with MCD to supply water to run this fountain? recommendation of Area Councillor and approval of DOH.
9. Since the so called fountain built over six years ago could not be put to As per above.
use for want of a water connection, is there any other proposal to put Page 1 of 5 this structure to use built with public money ?
Page 2 of 5Grounds for the First Appeal:
The information provided by the PIO is incomplete, irrelevant and not related to the questions asked.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PIO/DDH is directed to provide a reviewed reply to the appellant within 2 weeks.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No reply has been furnished till date by the PIO/DDH.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 18 July 2011:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. A.P. Jain;
Respondent: Absent;
"The Appellant states that after the order of the FAA on 17/03/2011 directing PIO/DDH (who was present during the first appellate hearing) to provide a reviewed reply to the Appellant within two weeks no communications has been received by the Appellant."
Commission's Decision dated 18 July 2011 :
The Appeal was allowed.
"The PIO/DDH is directed to provide the information as per the order of the FAA to the Appellant before 05 August 2011.
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 appears 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 12 August 2011 at 11.00am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). It also appears that they persistently refused to give the information inspite of repeated reminders to the respondent hence the Commission is also considering recommending disciplinary actions under Section 20(2) against them. He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant."
Relevant Facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 12 August 2011: The following were present Appellant: Mr. A.P. Jain;
Respondent: Mr. R. K. Singh, PIO & DDH; and Mr. Veer Singh, Deemed PIO & Assistant Director;
The FAA had issued an order on 17/03/2011 directing that the reply should be reviewed and the information should be sent to the Appellant within 02 weeks i.e. before 02/04/2011. Mr. Veer Singh, Assistant Director was present at the hearing but this information was not sent to the Appellant. After the order of the Commission the information which had not been sent earlier that is the amount spent in the construction of the water fall has been sent to the Appellant on 01/08/2011. After the order of the Commission was received by the PIO the information was provided within a week. The Appellant admits that he has received the information. The Deemed PIO Mr. Veer Singh was asked why he did not send the information as per the order of the FAA. He states that he attended the hearing of the FAA but did not take the order which was given. He states he was not aware of his role in the Page 3 of 5 FAA's hearing. This is not an acceptable excuse. An officer goes for a appellate hearing and states that he is not aware or does not understand that the order of the FAA has to be implemented.
The PIO Mr. R. K. Singh has given written submissions in which he has stated that the deemed PIO Mr. Veer Singh was present during the hearing but did not collected the order copies at that time. He ahs also stated that the information about the amounts spent on the construction on the water fall has not been provided to the Appellant and apologizes for not having provided the information earlier.
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 FAA had issued an order on 17/03/2011 directing that the reply should be reviewed and the information should be sent to the Appellant within 02 weeks i.e. before 02/04/2011. The information was provided only on 01/08/2011. Mr. Veer Singh, Deemed PIO & Assistant Director has not given any reasonable cause for not providing the information to the Appellant. Since the delay in providing the information has been for over 100 days the Commission imposes the maximum penalty of `25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. Veer Singh, Deemed PIO & Assistant Director.
Page 4 of 5Decision:
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. Veer Singh, Deemed PIO & Assistant Director. Since the delay in providing the information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Veer Singh `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. Veer Singh 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. Veer Singh and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from September 2011. The total amount of `25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of January, 2012.
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 12 August 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (PK)) Copies:
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. R. K. Singh
PIO & DDH
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, South Zone
Green Park, Zonal Building,
New Delhi- 110016
Page 5 of 5