CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000038/12197Penalty
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2011/000038
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Complaint:
Complainant : Mr. Murlidhar Tiwari
11 6,Shiv Shanker Purana Kapra Market
Pul -Kutub Road, Sadar BazarU
Delhi -110006.
Respondent : Mr. N. Nagraj,
Deemed PIO & Licensing Inspector
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o the Assistant Commissioner West Zone,
Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 22/08/2010
PIO replied : no reply
First appeal filed on : 30/11/2010
Complaint received on : 10/01/2011
Complaint notice sent on : 12/01/2011
Notice of Hearing sent on : 01/04/2011
Hearing held on : 29/04/2011
Information Sought by RTI:
How much portions is of tehbazari according to wards “7*5”, “6*4”?
Which wards have how much dues during the 31 March 2010 to 01 April 2010 according to each
market? Please provide the information within the 30 days.
PIO’s reply:
No reply given by the PIO.
Grounds of the First Appeal:
No information had provided to Complainant.
Ground of the Complaint:
No information had provided to the Complainant. Neither any hearing nor any order had issued, from
D.C West Zone, where the Complainant had appeal on 23/11/2010.
Submissions received from the PIO:
“With the reference to your application on the subject cited above, the report received from AO/WZ is
enclosed herewith for your information.”
Page 1 of 5
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 29 April 2011:
The following were present
Complainant: Mr. Murlidhar Tiwari;
Respondent: Mr. V. S. Yadav, PIO & Assistant Commissioner;
“No information was provided by the then PIO/AC(West Zone) Mr. A. K. Saxena. After the
order of the FAA which was given on 19/01/2011, the PIO has provided a CD containing complete
details of all the Tehbazaries. The Complainant states he is not able to understand this and what he
had sought was very simple information seeking information about the balance Tehbazari fees to be
collected ward wise. The Respondent states that this is available Market Wise.”
Commission’s Decision dated 29 April 2011:
The complaint was allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the market wise balance of Tehbazari Fees as on 31 March
2010 to the Complainant before 10 May 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
then PIO/AC(West Zone) Mr. A. K. Saxena within 30 days as required by the law. From the
facts before the Commission it appears that the then 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. 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 then PIO/AC(West Zone) Mr. A. K. Saxena will present himself before the Commission at the
above address on 31 May 2011 at 11.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why
penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).”
Relevant Facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 31 May 2011:
The following were present
Complainant: Ms. Ritu Saluja representing Mr. Murlidhar Tiwari;
Respondent: Mr. A. K. Saxena the then PIO & Assistant Commissioner presently VATO, Trade and
Taxes Department, ITO Complex, New Delhi; Mr. Nagraj, Dealing Assistant (RTI);
“The then PIO Mr. A. K. Saxena has given written submission in which he had received the
RTI application on 24/08/2010 and had sought the assistance of Mr. Prem Singh, AO(West Zone) on
06/09/2010. He has stated that the information did not come from Mr. Prem Singh and that he was
transferred from the post on 05/10/2010. In view of this the Commission issues a showcause notice to
Mr. Prem Singh the then AO(West Zone) to present himself before the Commission on 20 June 2011
at 02.30PM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on him.
Mr. Nagraj, Dealing Assistant (RTI) claims that the information has been sent to the Complainant on
09/05/2011. The Complainant states that the information has not been received. The Commission
directs Mr. Nagraj to bring the speed post receipt and the information to the Commission before
05.30PM today i.e. 31 May 2011.
Mr. Nagraj came to the Commission at 04.00PM and has produced the speed post receipt by which
the information was sent to the Complainant on 11/05/2011. The speed post receipt number is
ED311539749IN of weight 230grams. He has also given a copy of the information of 32 pages which
was sent to the Complainant and the Commission is sending it to the Complainant with this order. It
appears that the information was sent to the Complainant on 11/05/2011.”
Page 2 of 5
Adjunct Decision dated 31/05/2011:
“The Commission directs Mr. Prem Singh the then AO(West Zone) to appear before the
Commission on 20 June 2011 at 02.30PM to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not
be levied on him.”
Relevant facts emerging during the showcase hearing on 20/06/2011:
Respondent: Mr. Prem Singh, the then AO(West Zone) and Mr. N. Nagraj, Deemed PIO & Licensing
Inspector;
The then AO(West Zone) Mr. Prem Singh has given his written submission, wherein it is
mentioned that the RTI application dated 22/08/2010 was never put up before him. However the
DA/RTI Mr. N.Nagraj had given the said RTI application directly to all the Deemed PIOs. Deemed
PIO Mr. N.Nagraj has accepted that he had marked the RTI application to the deemed PIOs &
Licensing Inspectors Mr. P.Bose, Mr. R.S. Dabas, Mr. Jeewan Singh, Mr. S.K. Tyagi and himself.
Mr. N. Nagraj has claimed that since the information sought is being voluminous they could not
furnish the same to the Complainant within the stipulated time period. However deemed PIO Mr. N.
Nagraj has never informed the same to the Complainant. After the order of the FAA which was given
on 19/01/2011, the PIO had provided a CD containing complete details of all the Tehbazaries vide
letter dated 19/01/2011. The Commission notes that after its order of 29/04/2011 the information
was provided to the Complainant on 11/05/2011. Thus the claim of Mr. Nagraj that the information
was very voluminous and could not be supplied does not appear to be correct. The RTI application
had been made on 22/08/2010 and the information should have been supplied to the Complainant
before 22/09/2010. Instead the information has been supplied to the Complainant only on 11/05/2011.
From the statement of Mr. N. Nagraj, Deemed PIO it appears that information had to be provided by
him and Mr. P.Bose, Mr. R.S. Dabas, Mr. Jeewan Singh, Mr. S.K. Tyagi. The Commission issues a
showcause notice to Deemed PIO & Licensing Inspectors Mr. P.Bose, Mr. R.S. Dabas, Mr. Jeewan
Singh, Mr. S.K. Tyagi to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on them
for not providing the information within the time mandated under the RTI Act.
They will appear before the Commission with their written submissions on 14 July 2011 at 04.30PM.
Adjunct Decision:
The Commission directs Mr. P.Bose, Mr. R.S. Dabas, Mr. Jeewan Singh and Mr. S.K.
Tyagi to appears before the Commission on 14 July 2011 at 04.30PM with their
written submission to show cause whey penalty under Section 20(1) should not be
imposed on them for not providing the information with in 30 days.
The Commission asked Mr. N. Nagraj to explain the reasons for the delay. He has given a written
submission in which he has claimed that the information sought was voluminous and hence it took
time to supply the information. The Commission notes that ultimately the information was provided
in about 11 days and the deemed PIO & Licensing Inspector Mr. Nagraj who along with four others
who held the information did not provide it within the time of 30 days mandated in the Act.
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, “Where the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the
opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has
not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely
denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading
Page 3 of 5
information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any
manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each
day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such
penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on
him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the
Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”
A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must
impose penalty:
1) Refusal to receive an application for information.
2) Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 – 30
days.
3) Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request
4) Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ‘ without reasonable cause’.
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a
denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.”
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-
section (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two
hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there
was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1)
of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of
information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the
RTI Act.
The information should have been provided to the Complainant before 22/09/2010. Instead it was
provided to him only on 11/05/2011 after the order of the Information Commission. Since the delay in
providing the information is over 100 days the Commission is imposing the maximum penalty of
`25000/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. N. Nagraj, Deemed PIO & Licensing Inspector.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission
finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. N. Nagraj, Deemed PIO & Licensing
Inspector Since the delay in providing the information has been over 100 days, the
Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. N. Nagraj `25000/ which is the
maximum penalty under the Act.
Page 4 of 5
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the
amount of `25000/- from the salary of Mr. N. Nagraj 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 `5000/ per
month every month from the salary of Mr. N. Nagraj and remitted by the 10th of every
month starting from July 2011. The total amount of `25000 /- will be remitted by 10th
of November, 2011.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MC
1- Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Delhi- 110006
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110066
3- Copy to through Mr. Nagraj, Licensing Inspector to following;
1- Mr. P.Bose, LI;
2- Mr. R.S. Dabas, LI;
3- Mr. Jeewan Singh, LI;
4- Mr. S.K. Tyagi, LI;
Page 5 of 5