Central Information Commission
Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 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/2010/003323/10883Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003323
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma
9561, Azad Market,
Library Road, Delhi- 110006
Respondent : Mr. Anil Dalal,
EE (M) & Deemed PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Sadar Paharganj Zone,
Idgah Road, Delhi- 110006
RTI application filed on : 04/06/2010
PIO replied : 16/06/2010
First appeal filed on : 06/07/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 13/08/2010
Second Appeal received on : 26/11/2010
Information Sought:
The appellant had sought information regarding:
1. Demolition of 200 years old, Baba Gorakhnath Mandir at Shidipura. Delhi near sabji bazaar by one
AE Mr. Shiv Dutt, before 7 days from today.
2. From whom order with name and designation of the officer concerned, the same mandir structure
has been demolished by AE which consist of one room, roof, and boundary wall.
3. Copy of the order of the demolition be supplied.
4. The reason should also be disclosed why the same has been demolished.
Reply of the PIO:
1. An encroachment removal action was taken 2 years ago to remove encroachment at the above
mentioned site. The occupier re-encroached/constructed pucca structures on the above mentioned
site. Hence the encroachment removal action was taken on 22.5.2010 at the abovementioned site.
2. As per the instructions of D.C./S.P. Zone.
3. There is no order required to remove the encroachment from the Govt. Land.
4. As mentioned at (1).
Grounds of First Appeal:
Incomplete and non-satisfactory information has been given by the appellant.
Order of the FAA:
PIO may issue proper reply to the appellant with clear clarifications on the points within 10 working days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The PIO failed to comply with the orders of the FAA and did not supply the required information as per
directions of the FAA.
Page 1 of 4
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on January 11, 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma;
Respondent : Mr. N. K. Gupta, PIO & SE; Mr. Shiv Dutt, AE;
"The FAA had ordered on 13/08/2010 that the PIO should provide the basis for decision that the
demolished portion was actually an encroachment. The Respondent claims that the information was sent to
the Appellant on 30/11/2010 whereas the appellant claims that he never received this information. Besides it
appears that the information claimed to have been sent does not really provide the information sought by the
Appellant. The respondent states that the basis for deciding that the demolished portion was an
encroachment was a survey report carried out by MCD and DDA officials. The PIO is directed to send a
copy of this survey report to the Appellant.
The PIO states that the person responsible for sending the information after the order of the FAA is Mr. Shiv
Dutt, AE. The PIO also confirms that the deemed PIO Mr. Shiv Dutt was present during the hearing at the
First Appellate Authority.
The Appellant claims that he has been threatened for raising this issue through this RTI application. The
Appellant has also informed the Commission that the police has taken cognizance on this."
Decision dated January 11, 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The PIO is directed to send a copy of the survey report to the Appellant before
20 January 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
deemed PIO Mr. Shiv Dutt 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 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. Deemed PIO Mr. Shiv Dutt will present himself before the Commission at the
above address on 28 January 2011 at 11.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why
penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
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."
Facts leading to show cause hearing held on February 8, 2011:
At the show cause hearing held on 28/01/2011, Mr. Shiv Dutt, AE (M) - II appeared with the relevant papers and stated that he received the order of the FAA dated 13/08/2010 on 16/08/2010 and prepared a reply to the same. He then sent the reply to Mr. Anil Dalal, EE (M) on 20/08/2010. Mr. Shiv Dutt submitted that the PIO & SE was required to forward the reply to the Appellant. The Appellant stated that he received the reply only on 30/11/2010. Since the Commission was unable to ascertain which officer was responsible for the delay in complying with the order of the FAA, by notice dated 28/01/2011, Mr. N. K. Gupta, PIO & SE, Mr. Anil Dalal, EE (M) and Mr. Shiv Dutt, AE (M) - II were directed to appear before the Commission on 08/02/2011 for s show cause hearing.
Page 2 of 4Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on February 8, 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma;
Respondents: Mr. N. K. Gupta, PIO & SE, Mr. Anil Dalal, EE (M) & Deemed PIO and Mr. Shiv Dutt, AE (M) - II.
The Respondents stated that further to the order of the Commission, a copy of the survey report was provided to the Appellant within the time period prescribed.
The Commission further noted that Mr. Shiv Dutt received the order of the FAA dated 13/08/2010 on 16/08/2010. He prepared a reply to the same, which was forwarded to Mr. Anil Dalal on 20/08/2010. Mr. Anil Dalal sent the reply back to Mr. Shiv Dutt on 23/08/2010, who sent it back to Mr. Anil Dalal on 25/08/2010. Thereafter, Mr. Anil Dalal once again sent the reply to Mr. Shiv Dutt on 30/08/2010. Mr. Shiv Dutt prepared a revised reply and forwarded the same to Mr. Anil Dalal on 17/09/2010. Mr. Anil Dalal sent the reply to Mr. N. K. Gupta on 22/09/2010, who sent the same to the Appellant by speed post on 27/09/2010.
The Respondents submitted that information in pursuance to the order of the FAA was sent vide letter dated 22/09/2010. They stated that the reply dated 30/11/2010 was in response to another RTI application of the Appellant seeking information about the compliance of the order of the FAA dated 13/08/2010.
The PIO had sought the assistance of Mr. Anil Dalal, EE(M) to provide the information as per the order of the FAA. Hence Mr. Anil Dalal, EE(M) becomes the Deemed PIO as per combined reading of Section 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act. The Commission holds Mr. Anil Dalal for not providing the information as per the order of the FAA. As per the FAA's order the information should have been provided within 10 days i.e. before 23/08/2010. Instead the complete information was provided to the Appellant only after the order of the Commission on 24/01/2011. Thus the delay in providing the information was about 150 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'.
Page 3 of 4Section 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.
Since the delay in providing the information by Mr. Anil Dalal, EE (M) & Deemed PIO is over 100 days and no reasonable explanation for the delay has been provided, the Commission imposes the maximum penalty of `25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. Anil Dalal, Deemed PIO.
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 Dalal, EE (M) & Deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Anil Dalal, EE (M) `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 Dalal, EE (M) 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 Dalal, EE (M) 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.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner February 8, 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST) 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