Central Information Commission
Mr. S C Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 21 October, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002479/9856
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002479
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr.S.C.Sharma
Chamber No.976, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi.
Respondent (1): PIO & Dy.Law Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Law Department, HQ, Old Hindu College Bldg., Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
(2) Public Information Officer & Assistant Commissioner , Municipal Corporation of Delhi, O/o Assistant Commissioner, Shahdara South Zone, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 19/01/2010 PIO replied : 03/02/2010 First appeal filed on : Not mentioned. First Appellate Authority order : 04/03/2010 & 21/04/2010 Second Appeal received on : 06/09/2010 A. Whether it is fact that no monitoring of the performance of the Panel advocates of the MCD appointed in
Lower Courts, and Delhi High Court is done by the Law Department by holding monthly performance appraisal meetings in reviewing progress of various court cases pending against MCD particularly in regard to the cases where stay orders have been obtained against MCD by misrepresentation/forged documents. B. How many stay orders are operating against MCD in Lower Courts and Delhi High Courts for the last 5 years with year wise and the year wise and zone wise break-up and, whether due to gross negligence and lack of monitoring Law Department several stay orders pertaining to encroachment on Govt. Land and unauthorized construction in violation of building laws of MCD are pending.
C. That in the Civil Suit No 779/2006, the applicant, raised the matter through RTI against Sh. Harbans Kaushal, Panel Advocate who is guilty of gross misconduct on the following matters: . .
a) That Sh. Kaushal filed a W.S. in the above matter in connivance with the rival party which was in variance with the status reports filed in the court by A.E. of the MCD.
b) That Sh. Kaushal filed a wrong and misleading reply intentionally and deliberately on the application under order 12 rule 6 CPC of the applicant which was against the information given in the status reports and he apparently worked in connivance with the rival party to the detriment of the public interest.
c) That he filed in the civil court order dated 07.12.2005 of the Appellate tribunal MCD, where under the respondent was required either to compound or demolish the unauthorized construction within 15 days and further the AE. of the MCD was required to file compliance report before the Hon'ble Tribunal, MCD, withiin7 days but failed to bring this matter about non-compliance to the notice of. Hon'ble Court and SE building of Shahdara South Zone.
D That Sh. Kaushal in the court of Civil Judge always argued in favour of the respondent to the detriment of the interest of MCD.
Page 1 of 3What action has been taken against Sh. Harbans Kaushal from removing him from the penal of the MCD Advocates in all the lower courts and for reporting this matter to the Bar Council of Delhi and other Govt. Departments for his gross misconduct.
E. That in the Civil Writ petition 4515 of 2008 in Delhi High Court filed by Sh. P.N. Kohli in the matter of Sh.
P.N. Kohli Vs. Ministry of Housing and MCD no reply has been filed by the MCD Panel Advocate, in Delhi High Court for the last two years. Inspite of the fact that a copy of the application under order 1 rule 10 CPC for impleadment was given personally to, Sh. Vivek Sharma Law Officer of the MCD posted in Shahdàra South Zone of the MCD.
What are the duties assigned to Deputy Legal Advisor of MCD posted in Karkardooma Court, Tis Hazari Courts and other Court and whether they have been provided with computers, internet connection and supporting staff. Details of the staff provided and the facilities given to Law Officer may be indicated. Whether it is a fact that the law officers posted in various MCD offices and courts are not provided with computers, internet connection Furniture and staff on account of the dispute as to whether Law Department, MCD Zonal Offices would provided these facilities.
What is the present status and when these facilities would be provided to unable them to monitor the pending cases against the MCD.
H. Whether it is a fact that due to poor fee structure for Panel Advocate obtaining in MCD competent advocate have not come for to apply for enrolment as pane1 advocate What steps have been taken or proposed to taken to improve the fee structures in the light of the fee structure obtaining in Govt. of NCT. DDA. What action has been taken/proposed to be taken against Sh. Aggarwal panel who appeared for MCD before the Appellate Tribunal on 07.12.2005 in the above matter and failed to bring to the notice of the Municipal Commissioner MCD or Dy Commissioner, MCD Shahdara South Zone about, non-compliance of the Tribunal Order by A.E. of the MCD.
J. How many complaints have been received during the 5 years against panel advocate for misconduct/negligence and for not appearing in MCD matters and not filing W.S. and replies in various Civil Suits and petitions? Please give year and court wise details for the last five years.
Reply of the PIO:
(a) The information is not available with the Law Department. However, the same may be available with the PlO/AC, Shahdara(S) Zone and accordingly, this part of the RTI Is being transferred to PlO/AC, Shahadara(S) zone for supply of information.
(b) No advance copy of the contempt petition has been received in Law Department. However, Misc. Application was received on 2/312P06 and the same was sent to D/Shahdara(S) Zone for further action.
(c) The monitoring of cases before ATMCD are being done through panel advocates who contest the matter on behalf of MCD.
(d)&(e) The information is not available with the Law Department. However, the same may be available with Shahadara(S) Zone MCD for which the same has already been transferred to the PIO/Shahdara(S) Zone through DC/Shahdara(S) Zone MCD vide letter-- No,RTIII48/2010/714 dated 29/1/?010 under intimation to the applicant. Grounds for the First Appeal: Incomplete information received from the PIO. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA): FAA order dated 04/03/2010:
Today, the appellant is present in person: PlO of the Law Department is also present. I have heard the appellant. The appellant informed that in reply to his above application, the information supplied by the PlO is misleading.
Moreover, as per the appellant, he has not got any information from the PlO/Shahdara(S) Zone of MCD with respect to the paras which were transferred to them by the PlO)Law Department.
As per PlO/Law Department, information with respect to para (a), (d) and (e) were to be supplied by the PlO/Shahdara(S) Zone for which the application was transferred to the PlO/AC, Shahdara(S) Zone on 3/2/2010 vide letter No.RTI/148/L12010/810 under intimation to the applicant. As regard pare (b) & (c), the PlO/Law Department made a statement that respect to para(a), (d)& (e)to the applicant within 15 days positively. Whatever information is available with him, the same has already been supplied to the applicant and he has no further information to supply. In view of above, PlO/AC, Shahdara(S)zone is directed to supply the information within 15 days.
Page 2 of 3FAA Order dated 21/04/2010:
In the subject cited RTI Appeal, vide order dated24/02/2010; P10/AC; Shahdara(S) Zone, MCD was directed to supply the information with respect to para (a), (d) & (e) of the application dated 1911/2010 to the applicant within 15 days positively. The relevant paras of the application were forwarded to the PlO/AC, Shabdara(S) Zone by PIQ/Law Department vide letters No.RTI/148I2010/714 dated 29/1/2010 and No.RT1l14812010/810 dated 3/2/2010.
As per letter dated 13/4/2010 received from the appellant, the requisite information has not so far been supplied to him by the PlO)AC, Shahadara(S) Zone. is again directed to supply the requisite information to the P10/AC, Shahdara(S) Zone appellant immediately.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The Appellant claims that neither CPIO nor the First Appellate Authority have furnished the requisite information further inspection of the records have not been allowed neither by the FAA nor by the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a perusal of the papers it appears that PIO/AC Shahdara (South Zone) has not provided the information as per the order of the First Appellate Authority.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
PIO/AC Shahdara South Zone is directed to provide the information as directed by the First Appellate Authority to the appellant before 10 November 2010.
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 is apparent 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 give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 15 November 2010.
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 October 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AK) Page 3 of 3