Central Information Commission
Mr. Omprakash vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 12 April, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000025/6811Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000025
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Omprakash
S/o Mr. Ishrm
RZ - 65A/2, Block - Y,
New Roshanpura Extension, Papravat Road,
Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110043.
Respondent : Mr. K. K. Yadav,
Junior Engineer and Deemed PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Najafgarh Zone, Near Water Tank building,
Tilak Nagar Road, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 26/02/2009
PIO's reply : 20/05/2009
First Appeal filed on : 06/08/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 28/08/2009
Second Appeal received on : 31/12/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 12/01/2010
Hearing Held on : 12/02/2010
The Appellant had sought following information from PIO - MCD, Najafgarh
Zone related to colony where he is residing:
S.No. Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. Whether the Central Govt or Govt. of MCD has taken up the development of
NCT of Delhi had given the works in this colony as per order of UD
responsibility for taking care of Department, Delhi Govt.
construction of nallahs in ward no.
137 Najafgarh, Delhi to Delhi Govt.
or Delhi State Govt. during the year
2008-2009. if yes, then following
information was required:
i) the name of the Sh. KK Yadav, is the area JE of this colony.
responsible JE and Suptnd.
Engineer for taking care of
construction of clearance
of water in the said area.
ii) details of work orders The detail of work order had been provided
under which the said to the appellant.
nallah was constructed.
iii) Length and width of nallah
with details of The work of drain has been executed after
measurement of stating taking the proper level and as per condition.
and ending level of nallah
and slope ratio.
Page 1 of 4
iv) A) Name and trade mark The material in the drain has been used after
of the company whose testing the material from lab.
bricks and cement was
used in the construction.
b) quality of bricks and cement The work of drain has been executed as per
used. the specification of the work and it is wrong
c) Departmental standard ratio for to say that water is sea paging from the
using cement and sand stone in walls of drain. Drain may be over flow due
plastering and white wash. to the non cleaning.
v) Whether the part of these nallah
was constructed during Oct-2008 As per specification (as per work order).
to Dec'2008. if yes then following No.
information required
a) Whether the said nallah was Yes
made according to the
departmental standards.
b) Whether the leakage was No.
happening from the side walls
of said nallah.
vi) Whether any residents of the
said colony had lodges any No.
complaint regarding
construction of said anllah in
2008-09. if yes then copy of
said complaint with number
of complaints.
vii) Whether any correspondence
was sent by the MCD,
Nazafgarh Zone. If yes then
copy of the said letter with
copy of receipt. No.
Ground of the First Appeal:
Incorrect and incomplete information had been provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
"The case was further adjourned for 06-08-2009. but the appellant was not present.
However, the reply given by the EE(M-I)/NGZ has already been handed over to the applicant
and received by the applicant on 30.07.2009 and the appellant is satisfied with the reply".
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incorrect information had been provided by the PIO. Unfair disposal of the Appeal by
the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 12/02/2010:
"The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Omprakash;
Respondent : Mr. M.P. Panwar, PIO & Assistant Engineer (M-NG) - I;
With respect to Query-1(iii) the PIO states that no measurements are on record and it
is only ensured that water flow is maintained. The PIO will provide the trade mark of cement
and bricks. The PIO has stated that no complaint has been received about the construction of
nalli. The Appellant has produced before the Commission and the Respondent one complaint
given by him on 30/12/2008 which has been received at the office of the PIO.
Page 2 of 4
The RTI application has been filed on 26/02/2009 and the information should have been
provided by 28/03/2009. The PIO gave the first reply on 20/05/2009 which was clearly
incomplete. The PIO has finally given detailed reply only on 24/07/2009."
Decision dated 12 February 2010:
"The Appeal was allowed. The PIO was directed to give the information mentioned above to
the Appellant before 20 February 2010. As the issue before the Commission is of not
supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO within 30 days as required
by the law, the Commission issued a show cause notice to the deemed PIO Mr. Panwar and
directed him to present himself before the Commission on 15 March 2010 at 03.30pm
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him
as mandated under Section 20 (1) for not providing the complete information within the time
limit stipulated in the Act. If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the
information to the Appellant the PIO was directed to inform such persons of the show cause
hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him."
Facts emerging from the show cause hearing on 15/03/2010:
"The following persons were present:
Appellant: Mr. Om Prakash Respondent: Mr. MP Panwar, AE (Civil) & PIO; Mr. MP Panwar states that he had not received a copy of the Commission's decision and therefore was not aware of the exact time of the show cause hearing. The Appellant states that he has not received a copy of the receiving given by the MCD to his complaint."
Adjunct order announced on 15/03/2010:
"The Commission has decided to give another date for a show cause hearing -12/04/2010 at 3.30 pm. The Deemed PIO Mr. M.P. Panwar is directed to appear on this date along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him for delaying the provision of information to the Appellant. If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the deemed PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
The deemed PIO is further directed to give a copy of the receiving of the Appellant's Complaint, if available, to the Appellant before 31 March 2010 with a copy to the Commission."
Facts emerging from the show cause hearing on 12/04/2010:
The following persons were present:
Appellant: Mr. Om Prakash Respondent: Mr. MP Panwar, AE (Civil) & PIO;
Deemed PIOs Mr. Vimal Bhandari-JE and Mr. KK Yadav-JE;
Mr. Panwar states that the RTI Application was received by him on 03/03/2009 and forwarded to the JE Mr. Vimal Bhandari on 04/03/2009. Mr. Panwar states that the information was received from Mr. KK Yadav JE on 20/05/2009 which was forwarded to the Appellant. Detailed reply was given to the Appellant on 24/07/2009. The reason for delay as stated by Mr. Panwar is that the information was available in different offices.
The RTI application was received on 03/03/2009 and the information should have been provided by 03/04/2009. However, the first information provided only on 20/05/2009 after a delay of 46 days. Mr. Panwar says that he had sought the information under Section 5(4) from Junior Engineer Mr. K. K. Yadav. Mr. K. K. Yadav was asked to explain the reason for the delay. Mr. K. K. Yadav states that he had to get the information from Accounts Department and the work related to the year 2006. He states that therefore it took him time to get the information from accounts department. Mr. K. K. Yadav feels that the responsibility Page 3 of 4 for giving information late is with the accounts department. The Commission categorically stated that as per Section 5(5) of the RTI Act, "Any officer, whose assistance has been sought under sub-section (4), shall render all assistance to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, seeking his or her assistance and for the purposes of any contravention of the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be." Thus as per Section 5(5) the officer from whom assistance is sought by the PIO is liable for contravention of the provisions of this Act. There is no provision for "such other officer" seeking the assistance of another officer to whom the liability could get transfer. In view of this it was the responsibility of Mr. K. K. Yadav to ensure that the information was delivered within 30 days to the Appellant.
Mr. K. K. Yadav claims that the delay was because he got the information late from the Accounts Department. If Mr. K. K. Yadav did not hold the information he should have informed the PIO in writing. Since Mr. K. K. Yadav has not given any reasonable cause for the delay in providing the information the Commission sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Aon Mr. K. K. Yadav, Junior Engineer and Deemed PIO. The Commission penalizes Mr. K. K. Yadav at the rate of Rs.250/- per day of delay i.e. Rs. 250/- X 46 days = 11500/-
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. K. K. Yadav, Junior Engineer and Deemed PIO since the delay in providing the correct information has been of 46 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. K. K. Yadav for Rs. 11,500/-.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of Rs.11,500/- from the salary of Mr. K. K. Yadav 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 Rs.5750/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. K. K. Yadav and remitted by the 10th of May 2010 and 10th of June 2010. The total amount of Rs.11,500/- will be remitted by 10th of June, 2010.
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 April 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (BK) 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