Central Information Commission
Mr.Mufti Mohd Haneef vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 May, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000859/18829Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000859
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Mufti Mohd. Haneef
H No. 856 , II Floor
Sheesh Mahal
Bahadur Garh Road
Delhi- 06
Respondent Mr. Gulshan,
JE & Deemed PIO Municipal Corporation of Delhi Office of the Superintending Engineer (Bldg) Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone, Idgah Road, Behind Sadar Thana, Paharganj, New Delhi RTI application filled on : 30/12/2011 PIO replied : 21/02/2012 First appeal filed on : 10/02/2012 First Appellate Authority order : 09/03/2012 Second Appeal received on : 16/03/2012 The Appellant had sought information regarding the Documents of regularising of property no. 8892-93, Gali Hauji Waali, Naya muhalla, Pool Bangsa, delhi- 06.
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Property no. 8892-93, gali Hauji waali Naya Information sought by the applicant through this point muhalla, pool bangra Delhi- 06 is booked unde is that the Regularization files of P.No. 8892-93, Gali booking number 11/B/UC/S.P.Z. on date Haji Wall, Naya Mohalla, Pul Bangash, Delhi-6 is 10/01/2011.I want to get the photocopy of the available in the Bldg. Department. The applicant can application givn for the regularisation of the collect the documents from the department after property also provide the attested copies of the depositing Rs. 2-per page as per the RTI.Act. relevant documents related to this regularisation.
2. If the above mentioned property has been Information sought by the applicant through this point regularised than provide me the copy of the same. If is that the Regularization files of P.No. 8892-93, Gali the regularisation department has found out any Haji Wall, Naya Mohalla, Pul Bangash, Delhi-6 is objection than also provide me the copy of the available in the Bldg. Department. The applicant can Objection letter and if it has been already registered collect the documents from the department after in the regularisation department than provide me the depositing Rs. 2-per page as per the RTI.Act. Reject Copy .
3. On property no. 8892 and part 93, ward 76, Gali Information sought by the applicant through this point Haaji waali nayaa muhalla, pool Bangra, how many is that no action has been times the illegal construction booking 11/B/UC/SPZ initiated by the department. Action will be initiated as , demolish action has been decided to take action per the policy of the department and DMC Act. and how many times it has been done?
Page 1 of 44. Provide me the name and adress of the J.E & A.E. The tenure ot AEs and JEs is as under JEs: SI-I. (B) and all the responsible officials appointed from RAJESH KUMAR 07.01.11 TO 10/01/2011, who have not taken action on illegal 14.01.11 SH. S.L.MEENA 20.01.11 TO 23.01.11 SH. construction on property no.- 8892 and part 93 ? ARVIND MUKHRAIYA 24.01.11 TO 19.06.11 SH. S.L. MEENA 20.06.11 TO 22.06.11 SH. ARVIND MUKHRAIYA 23.06.11 TO 07.09.11 SH. MOHIT SUKHIJA 08.09.11 TO 31.10.11 SH. GULSHAN KUMAR 01.11.11 TO TILL DATE AEs: SH. lU. KHAN 07.01.11 TO' 27.04.11 SH. ANUJ TAYAL 28.04.11 TO 18.05.11 l U. KHAN 19.05.11 TO TILL DATE
5. . Who has kept this Property no. 8892 part 93 from The tenure ot AEs and JEs is as under JEs: SI-I. being caught under legal action and have not taken RAJESH KUMAR 07.01.11 TO any action against this, give me their name, mobile 14.01.11 SH. S.L.MEENA 20.01.11 TO 23.01.11 SH. no. and designation of such officials. ARVIND MUKHRAIYA 24.01.11 TO 19.06.11 SH. S.L. MEENA 20.06.11 TO 22.06.11 SH. ARVIND MUKHRAIYA 23.06.11 TO 07.09.11 SH. MOHIT SUKHIJA 08.09.11 TO 31.10.11 SH. GULSHAN KUMAR 01.11.11 TO TILL DATE AEs: SH. lU. KHAN 07.01.11 TO' 27.04.11 SH. ANUJ TAYAL 28.04.11 TO 18.05.11 l U. KHAN 19.05.11 TO TILL DATE
6. How many times police help has been asked for, as No such orders passed by the department.
to take action against the illegal construction of the above mentioned property? Provide me the copy of the notice 349 sent to the Police and the property owner as well Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply by the PIO within the stipulated time.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
FAA ordered that the PlO to provide certified copy of all the documents including plan etc. asked for without payment of any charge.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 09 May 2012:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Mufti Mohd. Haneef;
Respondent: Mr. I. U. Khan, AE(B) on behalf of Mr. Subhash Dodrai, PIO & SE;
"The information as per the order of the FAA has not been provided to the Appellant. The Respondent admits that the information has not been provided and has no reasons to offer for this. The Commission notes that at the hearing of the FAA Mr. Gulshan, JE(B) SPZ was present on behalf of the PIO. The Respondent states that the person responsible for not providing the information as per the of the FAA was Mr. Gulshan, JE SPZ."
Commission's Decision dated 09 May 2012:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The Commission directs Mr. I. U. Khan, AE(B) to provide the complete information as per available to the Appellant before 25 May 2012.Page 2 of 4
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO Mr. Gulshan, JE SPZ 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 complete information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that the deemed 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. Gulshan, JE SPZ will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 30 May 2012 at 4.00pm 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. If no other responsible persons are brought by the persons asked to showcause hearing, it will be presumed that they are the responsible persons."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 30 May 2012:
The following were present Respondent: Mr. Gulshan, JE & Deemed PIO;
The Respondent states that the FAA's order of 09/03/2012 did not mention a time period in which to supply the information. He states that he was confused whether he should give the information or not. Since the FAA had not specified the time in which the information has to be supplied. The Commission assumes the maximum period of 30 days mandated in the RTI Act could have been taken by the Respondent i.e. information should have been provided before 09/04/2012.
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 Page 3 of 4 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 order of the FAA should have been implemented latest before 09/04/2012 instead the information was provided to the Appellant only on 25/05/2012 i.e. after a delay of 44 days. Since no reasonable cause has been offered for the delay in providing the information the Commission imposes a penalty on Mr. Gulshan, JE & Deemed PIO at the rate of `250/- per day of delay for 44 days i.e. `250/- X 44 days= `11000/-
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Gulshan, JE & Deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the information has been of 44 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Gulshan `11,000/-.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `11,000/- from the salary of Mr. Gulshan 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 `2750/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. Gulshan and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from July 2012. The total amount of `11,000/- will be remitted by 10th of October, 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 30 May 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) 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. Subhash Dodrai
PIO & SE
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Office of the Superintending Engineer (Bldg)
Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone, Idgah Road,
Behind Sadar Thana, Paharganj,
New Delhi
Page 4 of 4