Central Information Commission
Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 11 January, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003323/10883
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. N. K. Gupta
PIO & SE 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.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
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:
The Appeal is 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.
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 11 January 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST)