CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00924 dated 14-9-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Lajinder Singh
Respondent: Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) South
FACTS
By an application of 7.3.2007 assigned ID No. 681 Shri Lajinder Singh
of Malviya Nagar applied to DC (South), MCD seeking the following
information:
“Please provide me the following information, application wise
individually of the action taken specially giving.
1. Name and designation of the official who was to take action
along with the report and notings made of his response on it.
2. Photocopies of no objection/ permission granted to anyone
for erecting them on public road if any. Full details be
provided if any such is under consideration as per your
record.
3. Policy guidelines copies, adopted on the subject matter from
time to time for granting permission/ refusing permission.
4. Any notice/ action taken out in the matter against persons
indulging in illegal actions and or errant officials of MCD for
not taking action in the matter.”
To this he received the following reply through a letter of 4.4.2007 from
JE (W) received by him on 19.4.2007 after payment of Rs. 18/- as fees
demanded through a letter of PIO, DC (South Zone) of 12.4.2007
S. Information Sought Information given
No.
1. Name and designation The applicant is requested to
provide copies of letters dated
of the official who was to
take action along with 9.3.2006, 28.8.2006 and
his report and noting 7.1.2004. As department
made of his superiors does not keep record of letters
on it. by its dates. The question is
not cleared intelligible,
therefore, can not be reply.
2. Photocopy of no No such NOC/ permission for
objection/ permission erection of iron gates/ barriers
granted to any one for have been granted by the
1
erecting these on public department.
road, if any. Full details
be provided if any such
move is under
consideration as per
your records.
3. Policy guidelines copies The policy framing of rules for
adopted on the subject fixing of gate pertains to
matter from time to time Planning Department,
for granting permission/ However, a copy of
refusing permission. Corporation Resolution No.
466 dated 6.11.2006 is
enclosed as taken from the
Planning Department. This
Resolution was referred back
to commissioner, MCD,
therefore, SE (Planning) MCD
be requested to provide
further information, if any.
4. Any notice/ action taken No notice/ action has been
out in the matter against taken in this regard. The
persons indulged in question is not appropriate
illegal activities and/ or worded. Hence, not
errant officers of MCD applicable.
for not taking action in
the matter.
Not satisfied appellant moved his first appeal before Addl.
Commissioner (Engineering) on 20.4.2007 upon which Addl. Commissioner
(Engineering) in his order of 25.5.2007 directed as follows:-
“On examining the appeal, it has been observed question
specific reply has not been provided. The information sought by
the appellant is a matter of record and the information should
have been provided in time.
PIO is, therefore, directed to examine the application of the
appellant and provide question specific reply within 10 days.”
However, the prayer of appellant Shri Lajinder Singh in his second
appeal before us is as follows:-
1. “The PIO shall be directed to provide complete, correct and
specific information/ documents.
2. The PIO/AA shall be proceeded against under section 20 of the
RTI Act, both for penalty and administrative action.
2
3. The appellant shall be compensated to the tune of RS. 500/-
incurred in filing two appeals and taking rounds of their offices.
4. The appellant shall be refunded Rs. 18/- paid as the information
was not supplied on time and further these were irrelevant
papers.”
He has specifically criticized the decision of First Appellate Authority
even though this order that the information sought be provided to him, in his
second appeal before us as follows:-
“That it has become a routine practice for the AA to direct PIO to
supply the information without application of mind for the
grounds of appeal and the AA has not passed any order of this
vital aspect at all. The fact remains that AA has not heard this
appeal and the same was heard by some LDC posted at
Bhagirath Palace office making a mockery of RTI Act.”
The appeal was heard on 22-8-2008. The following are present.
Appellant
Shri Lajinder Singh.
Respondents
Shri M. K. Singhla, EE, M.S. II.
Shri K. P. Singh, AE (MS) II.
Shri Mamraj, Zonal Superintendent.
Shri Rajesh Kumar, UDC.
Appellant submitted that the information supplied to him was
incomplete. He also submitted that his objection to the order of First
Appellate Authority even though it contains a direction that information be
supplied to him was that it was passed without hearing him and has not been
complied with.
He specifically cited the following information which has not been
received and of which no specific mention has been made in the order of First
Appellate Authority
i. The official assigned the responsibility of acting on his
Report.
ii. Full details of any move for erecting a gate at the specific site
of Municipal Road between property No. 182 and D-102 B,
Village Khirki.
iii. Policy Guidelines.
3
Shri M. K. Singhla, EE, (MS) II, submitted a copy of the Policy
Guidelines for installation of gates dated 25.6.2007 of which a copy was given
to the appellant. In turn, appellant Shri Lajinder Singh provided a copy of
three letters stated not to have been received by the MCD in their letter of
4.4.2007 to EE. A Press cutting referred in these letters was not, however,
attached. Appellant Shri Lajinder Singh undertook to provide a copy the same
day to Shri Rajesh Kumar, UDC.
Shri Lajinder Singh submitted that the information supplied to him was
delayed and, therefore, penalty should apply.
DECISION NOTICE
The applicant Shri Lajinder Singh has approached this
Commission submitting, inter-alia, that in spite of the orders passed by the
first Appellate Authority, the PIO has not complied with the orders and the
information requested has not been furnished till date.
From the facts above, it appears that this is a case of malafide
denial of Information by the PIO. However since it is the responsibility of the
First Appellate Authority to ensure that the orders passed by it are duly
complied with by the PIO, and some inadequacies in exchanging documents
now stand addressed, the Commission has decided to remand the case
back to the first Appellate Authority Addl Commissioner (Engineering)
to ensure that his orders under section 19(1) are duly complied with and
the requested information furnished in terms of the order so passed. In doing
so, he will ensure the supply of specific information cited in the previous
paragraphs by appellant Shri Lajinder Singh.
If the compliance is not ensured within 15 days from the date of receipt
of this order, the FAA should approach this Commission for initiation of
proceedings under section 20 of the RTI Act for imposition of penalty and/or
recommending appropriate disciplinary action. This will be without prejudice to
the right of the First AA to initiate other penal action under the Indian Penal
4
Code against the PIO for wilful violation of lawful orders promulgated by a
public servant while exercising statutory powers.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
22-8-2008
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
22-8-2008
5