Central Information Commission
Manju vs Ndmc on 25 November, 2020
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/NDMCN/C/2018/633929
Ms. Manju निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
The PIO, ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
PALIKA KENDRA BUILDING,
CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI 110001
Date of Hearing : 24.11.2020
Date of Decision : 25.11.2020
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 13.11.2017
PIO replied on : No Reply
First Appeal filed on : 15.12.2017
First Appellate Order on : No Reply
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.11.2017seeking information on 04 pointsrelated to an alleged illegal running of shop attehbazari no. 129T01, Mohan Singh Place:
1. यहदु कानककस Enforcement अकिकारीकेअंतर्गतआतीहै (अकिकारीकानामव्पदनामसकहत)
2. Enforcement अकिकारीने कपछने 1 वर्ग मेंइसदु कानकेमाकिककोवहां दुकानचितेहुएपाया (जोकीतेहबाज़ारीकेअंतर्गतआवश्यकहै)
3. उपरोक्तदु कानको Enforcement अकिकारीद्वाराजां चकरतेसमयकपछिे १वर्ग मेंककतनीबारदु कानके Original Allotment केकार्जोंकीजां चकीर्ई (जोककआवश्यकहै)
4. उपरोक्तदु कान Enforcement Officer कीमददसेअवैिरूपसेचिवायीजारहीहै तोउसअकिकारीकेऊपरक्याकारवाहीकीजासकतीहै (Queries reproduced verbatim) Having not received any response from the PIO, The Complainant filed first appeal dated 15.12.2017, which was also not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.Page 1 of 3
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from PIO and Dy Director Enforcement vide letter dated 23.11.2020 wherein it was stated that he was just given the additional charge of Dy Director (Enforcement) and is not aware of the RTI in question. While regretting that the reply was not given against the instant RTI it was stated that the reply was now given to the Appellant.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
The Complainant could not be reached on her mobile phone despite several attempts made by the Commission.
The Respondent is represented by Shri Kamal Roy, Dy Director, Enforcement and Shri Krishan Thakran, Municipal Inspector, Enforcement through audio conference. Shri Roy while reiterating his written submission tendered their unconditional apology for the delay in providing the information and stated that the information was provided to the Complainant at this stage. However, on perusal of the written submission, the Commission noted that the copy of the reply sent to the Complainant was not enclosed with the same. Hence, during the hearing, the Commission directed the Respondent to forward a copy of the reply to the Commission subsequent to the hearing which has been compiled by the Respondent.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and in the light of the records available with the Commission, it is evident that no reply was provided to the Complainant within the period stipulated under the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the Commission directs Shri Kamal Roy, Dy Director Enforcement to show cause by furnishing a written submission explaining the reason why penal action u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 should not be initiated against him for the delay caused in providing the information. The written submission shall reach the Commission atleast one week prior to the date of show cause hearing to be scheduled in due course.
With the abovementioned direction, the instant Complaint stands disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 2 of 3 Authenticated true copy (अकिप्रमाकित सत्याकपत प्रकत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाि ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3