Central Information Commission
Mr. Sunder Lal Khatri vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 July, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000164/7475Penalty
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000164
Complainant : Mr. Sundar Lal Khatri
680/A, Lampur Road
Bankner, Narela
New Delhi-110040
Respondent : Mr. Ashish Mohan
Public Information Officer &
SDM (Narela)
O/o the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
Narela At Alipur, N-W District
New Delhi-110036
Facts arising from the Complaint:
Mr. Sundar Lal Khatri had filed a RTI application with the PIO, SDM, Narela on 16/11/2009 asking for certain information. However, on not having received any further information within the mandated time, the Complainant filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. On this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the PIO, O/o the SDM, GNCTD, Narela on 18/02/2010 with a direction to provide the information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The Commission has neither received a copy of the information sent to the Complainant, nor has it received any explanation from the PIO for not supplying the information to the Complainant. However, the Commission received a letter dated 15/03/2010 from the Complainant to express his dissatisfaction over larger part of the information provided to him vide PIO's/SDM letter dated 02/03/2010. The Complainant also enclosed copy of the said letter of the PIO. On perusal of the information, it has been observed that information provided on Query No. 2, 3 and 5 is incomplete and inappropriate. On Query No.2 the PIO should provide the complete name and address of the concerned officer of Narela zone who takes action under Section 86A on the matters relating illegal construction on the agricultural land of Gram Sabha land. Further, on Query No. 3 the PIO should provide a copy of both rules viz. CRPC-133 and 86A to the Complainant. Furthermore, on Query No. 5, second part of the information provided is inappropriate; the PIO should have sought assistance under Section 5(4) of the Act from concerned person(s) who might be the custodian of the sought information. Further, if the information is not available on record with anyone in the department the PIO should clearly state the same. In addition to this, the Commission notes that the contents of the first two photocopied documents annexed therein by the PIO are not properly photocopied and therefore illegible on certain part.
It appears to the Commission that information provided by the PIO on rest of the queries of the RTI application is adequate. However, from the facts before the Commission it appears that there has been a delay of over 65 days on the part of the PIO in providing the information to the Complainant.
Decision dated 15/04/2010:
The Complaint was allowed.Page 1 of 3
"In view of the aforesaid, the PIO is hereby directed to provide complete and correct information as mentioned above on Query No 2, 3 and 5 of the RTI Application to the Complainant before 07/05/2010 with a copy to the Commission. Further, in view of the failure on the part of the PIO to respond to the Commission's notice shows that there is no reasonable cause for the delay in providing the information. It is apparent that the PIO has failed to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and 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. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions and disciplinary action of Section 20 (1) and (2).
.
The PIO is hereby directed to be present before the Commission on 17/05/2010 at 12.00 pm along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action be recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act. Further, the PIO may serve this notice to such person(s) who are responsible for this delay in providing the information, and may direct them to be present before the Commission along with him on the aforesaid scheduled date and time. The PIO should also bring along proof of seeking assistance from other person(s), if any."
Facts leading to showcause hearing dated 02/07/2010:
During the show cause hearing on 17/05/2010 Mr. Virender Kumar appeared on behalf of the PIO/SDM and submitted the written submissions of the PIO, Mr. Ashish Mohan. In the written submissions the PIO had submitted that the RTI application was transferred to the deemed PIO, BDO (NW) on 18/11/2009. The deemed PIO & BDO (NW) has stated that the RTI application was received in his office on 29/01/2010. The Commission has therefore decided to schedule another showcause hearing on 02/07/2010 at 03.00 p.m. to apportion the responsibility of delay in providing the information. The PIO & SDM Mr. Ashish Mohan and the deemed PIO & BDO Mr. Om Prakash were directed to provide the correct and complete information to the Complainant before 25/06/2010. The Commission further directed both of them to appear before the Commission on 02/07/2010 along with their written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on you under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Note: The Commission could not complete the hearing on 02/07/2010 hence the hearing was completed on 03/07/2010.
Relevant facts emerging during showcause hearing dated 03/07/2010:
Complainant: Mr. Sundar Lal Khatri Respondent: Mr. Ashish Mohan, SDM & PIO; Mr. Om Prakash, BDO & Deemed PIO;
The PIO & SDM(Narela) Mr. Ashish Mohan stated that the RTI application dated 16/11/2009 was forwarded to the deemed PIO & BDO on 18/11/2009, however he did not produce any documentary evidence regarding the movement of the RTI application. Mr. Ashish Mohan also claimed that in compliance of the Commission's order dated 15/04/2010 the information with regard to Query nos. 2, 3 & 5 of the RTI application was provided to the Complainant vide a letter dated 03/05/2010. The Complainant alleged that he never received the reply dated 03/05/2010. It appears that the information claimed to have been sent is adequate.
The deemed PIO & BDO Mr. Om Prakash stated that the RTI application dated 16/11/2009 was received in his office only on 29/01/2010 and the same was replied to on 26/02/2010.
The RTI application had been submitted on 16/11/2009 and the PIO claims that he sent the application to the BDO on 18/11/2009. However, he has not proof to show that the RTI application was actually sent to the BDO. The BDO Mr. Om Prakash states that he received the RTI application only on 29/01/2010 and gave the information on 26/02/2010 to the PIO which was forwarded to the PIO on 02/03/2010. The PIO SDM Mr. Ashish Mohan is not able to give any proof that the RTI Application was forwarded to the BDO's office before 29/01/2010. The Commission has clearly indicated to every one when giving shwocause3 notice that if any other officers who are responsible for the delay they should be brought before the Commission. It si Page 2 of 3 also expected that when an officer comes for a showcause hearing if he has proof or evidence to prove that he is not responsible for the delay he should bring it with him. The showcause notice was issued to the PIO Mr. Ashish Mohan on 15/04/2010. He states that some other officers may be responsible but has brought no proof to support this. On 02/07/2010 when the hearing was conducted he had claimed that he had sent it on 18/11/2009 to the BDO had denied it. Mr. Ashish Mohan admits that the BDO's office is physically on the same premises as his office. Thus it is impossible to believe that the RTI application would not have been delivered the same day that it was sent. Hence it is clear that the RTI Application was sent to the BDO's office only on 29/01/2010.The PIO was asked if he wanted to give any other reasons for the delay. He is offering no other reasons for the delay but keeps saying that he sent the RTI application on 18/11/2009. The RTI application was made on 16/11/2009 and the information should have been provided to the Complainant before 16/12/2009. Instead of which the information was provided on 02/03/2010 i.e. after the delay of 72 days.
Since no reasonable cause has been offered by the PIO for this delay the Commission finds this as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. Ashish Mohan, PIO & SDM. The Commission imposes a penalty at the Rs. 250/- per day of delay i.e. Rs. 250 X 72 days = 18000/-.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Ashish Mohan, PIO & SDM. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been of 72 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Ashish Mohan Rs. 18,000/-.
The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of Rs.18000/- from the salary of Mr. Ashish Mohan 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 Rs.6000/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. Ashish Mohan and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from August 2010. The total amount of Rs.18000 /- will be remitted by October, 2010.
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, 2005.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
03 July 2010
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 3 of 3