Central Information Commission
Mr.Ram Gopal Sing vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 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/2010/003042/10561Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003042
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ram Gopal Singh
538, Pocket-7, Sector A-10
Narela, Delhi-40
Respondent : Mr. Hetesh Saxena,
Dy. Director (SUR) & PIO, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, Government of NCT of Delhi D-Block Room no.3, Vikas Kuteer, IP Estate, New Delhi;
RTI application filed on : 04/08/2010 PIO replied : 01/09/2010 First appeal filed on : 01/09/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 11/10/2010 Second Appeal received on : 27/10/2010
The appellant had sought information regarding the segregation records.
Sr. Information Sought Reply Of PIO and Director (SUR)
1. The names and the records of all the survey no. and The survey is not available when looked for the
the juggi no. destroyed in the year 2000 near Shaheed records. The survey documents cannot be provided.
Park. The amount deposited for the slum account.
2. Those who are allotted the plots and are staying This information is not available in this branch.
there, are not provided with amount of Rs. 7000. Delhi Govt. directs with policy matters. Only if the Details of when the amount would be provided to Delhi government directs, any such of information them. would be given for the same.
3. The details for the allotment of original documents or In accordance with the Delhi high court and the if the time-period is extended for the same. The Delhi Govt. the service policies are provided. Thus, details of the original documents provided by the no information is provided for those who have been government, and if the time-limit is finished, then the allotted the plots for almost 10 years. remedy for the same.
Grounds of First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
1. "PlO informed that the work relating to segregation is under process and it is likely to take time and no time frame can be given in this regard, but they are expediting the matter and process of the Page 1 of 4 computerization of the segregated record is under process under the Delhi Urban Shelter improvement Board.
2. Since this is a policy matter as per information provided by PlO any action in this regard will be initiated after receipt of directions from Delhi Govt. since the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board is a Nodal Agency on behalf of the Govt.
3. A copy of the order of Hon'ble Court in the matter of Okhla lndl. Area and Wazir Pur Indl. Area may be provided to the appellant which was desired by the Appellant."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete information provided by the PIO and the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 22 December 2010:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Ram Gopal Singh;
Respondent : Mr. Harish Vats, Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (SUR);
"The Commission records with distress the fact that Mr. Harish Vats PIO who was supposed to come to the Commission at 10.00Am for the hearing has arrived only at 10.40AM when the hearing was already started. The Commission directs to the Director, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board to mark Mr. Harish Vats absent for half a day for today.
The Appellant states that he has not received the order of the Court which the First Appellate Authority had ordered to be provided to the Appellant. It has been given to the Appellant before the Commission. The Appellant has sought a copy of a survey reportedly made in 2001 of the Jhuggies which were demolished near India Express Building at Saheed Park. The PIO states that the copy of the survey report is not traceable. It is surprising how such crucial reports are not kept properly by Public Authority. By such actions of having reports untraceable a lot of arbitrariness and corruption thrives.
The PIO is also directed to provide a copy of any letter/order if available for not to take deposits from Jhuggi Dwellers. If no such letter/order is available this should be stated."
Commission's Decision dated 22 December 2010 :
The Appeal was allowed.
"The PIO will provide the attested photocopy of the survey report to the Appellant before 10 January 2011. In case the survey report is not located a police complaint will be filed for the theft/loss of the survey report naming the officers who last handled it. The Copy of the FIR will be provided to the Appellant and the Commission before 10 January 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the 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 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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 20 January 2011 at 4.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1)."Page 2 of 4
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 20 January 2011:
The following were present Respondent : Mr. Hetesh Saxena, Dy. Director (SUR)/PIO, D-Block Room no.3, Vikas Kuteer, IP Estate, New Delhi;
The Police complaint has been filed regarding the loss of the survey report of the Jhuggi Cluster near Saheed Park/Express Building. The PIO claims that after the order of the FAA he sent a letter on 19/10/2010 to the Appellant asking him to deposit `4/- as additional fee for providing 02 pages of the High Court's order as per the order of the FAA. The Commission asked him to show any proof that this letter was ever sent. He states he does not have any such proof at the moment. It is also significant that no such claim has been made during the hearing at the Commission on 22/12/2010. Besides as per Section 7(3) of the RTI Act information has to be supplied free of cost once the mandated period of 30 days is over and all PIOs very well aware of this. The order of the FAA was issued on 11/10/2010 to provide the information. The FAA has not mentioned any time frame for providing the information but the maximum time that can be allowed would be 30 days. Thus the information should certainly have been provided before 11/11/2010. Instead the information very specific ordered by the FAA was provided to the Appellant during the hearing on 22/12/2010 i.e. after a delay of 40 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'.
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 the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives Page 3 of 4 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.
No reasonable explanation has been offered for the delay of 40 days by Mr. Hetesh Saxena, Dy. Director (SUR)/PIO. Hence the Commission sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act at the rate of `250/- per day of delay i.e. `250/- X 40 days = `10000/-.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Hetesh Saxena, Dy. Director (SUR)/PIO. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been of 40 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Hetesh Saxena `10,000/-.
The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `10,000/- from the salary of Mr. Hetesh Saxena 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. Hetesh Saxena and remitted by the 10th February 2011 and 10th March 2011. Hence the total amount of `10,000/- will be remitted by 10th of March, 2011.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 20 January 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PBR) CC:
To, 1- The Chief Secretary GNCT of Delhi New Delhi 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