Central Information Commission
Mr.Tanjeem Ahmed vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002172/9422
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002172
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Tanzeem Ahmed
768/1, 774 Batlimaran
Delhi - 110006
Respondent : Mr. Balbir Singh
Public information officer & Dy. Director
Delhi Urban shelter Improvement Board
GNCTD (Formerly Slum & JJ)
B-11, Vikas Kutir.
Purnavs Bhavan, ITO
Delhi
RTI application filed on : 15/03/2010
PIO replied : 06/04/2010
First appeal filed on : 09/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 24/06/2010
Second Appeal received on : 23/07/2010
Information sought
1. The letter issued to the appellant dated 22-12-2009 did not reach him; the name of the person accountable for it and the reasons why it was stopped with proof and detail.
2. The copy of the document which was signed by the appellant on 15-01-2010 at JJ department store Kaccha Bagh, town hall containing the list of the goods with proof and related documents.
Reply of the Public Information Officer
1. The above mentioned letter has been dispatched to the appellant by central post. The proof has been enclosed.
2. Confiscated goods has been deposited at the Kaccha Bagh store and the proof has been enclosed. Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information furnished by the public information officer. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
AD(DEMO) is further directed to make a request to concerned AE/JE to provide a copy of the list signed by Mr. Tanjeem Ahmed in respect of items taken in custody by them under intimation to him.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Proper information on query-2 has not been provided so far as per the order of the FAA. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Saud Ahmed representing Mr. Tanzeem Ahmed Respondent: Mr. Balbir Singh, Public information officer & Dy. Director;
The respondent states that he has not received any information after the order of the FAA. The respondent claims that he has sent the information on 26/07/2010 but has brought no speed post receipt to show that any letter was sent to the appellant. It therefore appears that no information was sent to the appellant so far. The information which is claimed to have been sent is a list of items which have been handed and taken over between MCD officers and does not have any signature of Mr. Tanjeem Ahmed. If there is no list signed by Mr. Tanjeem Ahmed this should be stated. If however such a list exist this should be provided.
The First Appellate Authority had ordered AD(DEMO) Mr. Hariram Mahto to provide the information to the appellant in his order of 10/06/2010. It appears that Mr. Hariram Mahto has not provided the information after the order of the FAA.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to give the information as directed above to the appellant before 10 October 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed PIO AD(DEMO) Mr. Hariram Mahto within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent 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.
AD(DEMO) Mr. Hariram Mahto will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 29 October 2010 at 11.30am 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.
his 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 20 September 2010 (For any further correspondence on this matter, please mention the file number quoted above.) (VK) CC, To, AD(DEMO) Mr. Hariram Mahto through Mr. Balbir Singh, Public information officer & Dy. Director;