Central Information Commission
Mr.Charanjit Lal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 December, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003206/10385
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003206
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Charanjit Lal,
4580, Main Bazar,
Paharganj,
New Delhi-55
Respondent : Executive Engineer (Bldg. SPZ)&
Deemed PIO Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone, Idgah Road, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 12/07/2010 PIO replied : Not Replied First appeal filed on : 24/08/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 20/10/2010 Second Appeal received on : 18/11/2010 Information Sought:
The information sought by appellant is with regard to action taken/outcome/result of the two following applications:
1. Application registered in the O/o DC/MCD/Sadar Paharganj Zone, central room of 10.06.2010 regarding an alleged illegal construction of a basement in a building in which the appellant was staying.
2. Registered Letter, Registry no. RLA 9536 of 18.06.2010 of Paharganj Post Office addressed to the Commissioner, MCD, Town Hall, Delhi.
Reply of PIO:
Not replied.
First Appeal:
No information given by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
"I have gone through the appeal. It revealed the application filed under RTI Act. was forwarded to EE (Bldg.)/SPZ under ID NO.291/SE/SPZ. But no reply was sent to applicant so far despite the reminder given to EE (Bldg.) by SE/SPZ, Therefore deemed PlO/EE (Bldg.)/SPZ is directed to supply the requisite information to appellant within 10 working days as available on record under the provision of RTI Act."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information given by PIO even after order is passed by FAA. Decision:
From the submissions of the appellant it appears that despite the clear order of the FAA no information has been provided to him. The FAA's order states that the PIO had sought the assistance of EE (Bldg.) SPZ under 5 (4) but no information had been provided.
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs the deemed PIO EE (Bldg.) SPZ to provide the information on the action taken on the two letters mentioned by the appellant in the following format before 25 December 2010:
Date on which Name and Action Date on which
Complaint/letter designation of taken forwarded to
received The officer receiving Next officer/office.
it.
*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the complaint. Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed PIO EE(Bldg.) SPZ 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 give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 30 December, 2010. 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.
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 9 December 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PBR)