Central Information Commission
Mr.Dinesh Kumar Kaushik vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 21 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/2010/003508/11083
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003508
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Kaushik
6073, Gali Batashian,
Khari Bauli, New Delhi 110005
Respondent : Mr. R. Prasad
Public Information Officer & SE Municipal Corporation of Delhi Civil Lines Zone 16, Rajpur Road, Delhi 110054 RTI application filed on : 07/09/2010 PIO replied : 15/10/2010 First appeal filed on : 03/11/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 15/11/2010 Second Appeal received on : 14/12/2010 Information Sought:-
1. P1ease inform under which provision of MCD Act, Demolition squad can suspend the demolition action.
2. Please inform what undertaking was given by the owner of the property bearing No. E-99, Kamla Nagar and also provide the copy to such undertaking?
3. Please inform what action MCD takes if the owner of the property fails to comply with the undertaking given by him/her to the MCD?
4. Please inform after how much time MCD will take action if the owner of the property fails to comply with the undertaking given by him/her to the MCD?
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):-
"In this context, it is correct the demolition squad of the MCD visited the above property for taking demolition action and some action was also taken on the property. But during the period, the owners of the property submitted an undertaking assuring the MCD that they would demolish the unauthorized constriction by 15/09/2010.
However, the owners fixed a case before the AT/MCD and a stay order was granted by tae Hon'ble Court restraining MCD to take any further action in this matter.
As the mater is sub-judice and the record pertaining to the property in question is with AT/MCD. Therefore, no further comments can he offered till the matter is decided by the Hon'ble Court. please."
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete & unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.Page 1 of 2
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"PIO has replied question No. 1, Regarding question No.2, PIO will provide copy of the undertaking to the appellant. Regarding question No.3 & 4 PIO has already informed that the appeal has been filed in the AT/MCD by the owner of the property in question and AT/MCD has restrained MCD from taking any action, hence, I am satisfied with reply provided by the PIO. He will provide the required document within 10 working days to the appellant as desired by him in question No.2."
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory & incomplete information received from PIO & FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Deepak Goel, AE(B) on behalf of Mr. R. Prasad, PIO & SE;
The Commission has perused the papers and it appears that the main ground for the second appeal was that the undertaking submitted by the owners which was to be sent to the Appellant as per the order of the FAA on 07/09/2010 was not sent to the Appellant within 10 working days as per the order of the FAA. The undertaking was supplied on 30/08/2010 as per the covering note of 10/01/2011 which has been shown to the Commission and it is claimed that this has been sent on 12/01/2011 to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The information appears to have been sent on 12/01/2011.
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.
The PIO Mr. R. Prasad will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 05 February 2011 at 10.30am 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 21 January 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(KJ) Page 2 of 2