CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001431/13485Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001431
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Virendra Kumar,
42-H, C.B.I. Colony,
Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi- 110057.
Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar,
Deemed PIO & LDC
Land and Building Department,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
B-Block, Vikas Bhavan, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 04/02/2011
PIO replied : 15/03/2011
First appeal filed on : 08/03/2011 and 17/03/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 04/04/2011
Second Appeal received on : 27/05/2011
Sl. Information sought by the appellant Reply of the PIO
1. Kindly state the answer (yes/no) – Whether the order of In compliance with the order of the Hon’ble
the Hon’ble High Court in WPC No. 1267/2007 has High Court in WPC No. 1267/2007, the
been complied with? case of the applicant has been examined and
is under process.
2. Kindly provide the note-sheet copy of the documents You may visit this office within 15 days of
aforesaid (please refer to the original RTI application issue of this letter and obtain the copies of
appended in the file at page 4.) from 05/03/2010 to the desired documents on payment of Rs.
01/02/2011. How many are pending in the Dy. 2/- per page as copying charges.
Secretary (Alt. Branch), kindly provide the
information.
3. What has been the daily-progress on the As in 2 above.
aforementioned documents? Also, provide the names
and designation of the concerned officials (if any) of
them failed in performing their duty.
4. What would be the action taken on such officials and The information sought is not available in
workers who have failed in performing their duty? this office.
5. By when such action be taken? (ref to ques. No. 4) As in 4 above.
6. Kindly provide the photocopy of note-sheet of file. No. You may visit this office within 15 days of
F.32 (71)/157/87/L&B/Alt. the issue of this letter and obtain the copies
of the file bearing No. F.32
(71)/157/87/L&B/Alt. on the payment of Rs
2/- per page as copying charges.
Ground of the First Appeal:
The information provided by the PIO of query no. 1 to 5 is incomplete and dissatisfactory. Only the
reply with respect to query no. 6 is satisfactory.
Page 1 of 5
Order of the FAA:
As the appellant has grievance with respect to the reply of point no. 1,3,4 and 5, that they are not clear
and pertinent, the PIO is directed to give the revised reply within 15 days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No complete and satisfactory information has been provided by the PIO in compliance with the order
of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 16/07/2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Virendra Kumar;
Respondent: Mr. Alok Sharma, Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary;
“The First Appellate Authority (FAA) had directed on 04/04/2011 that the information should
be sent to the Appellant as per the direction of the FAA’s order within 15 days i.e. before 19/04/2011.
This was not done and the information has been sent to the Appellant by speed post no.
ED336746778IN on 12/07/2011. The Appellant has received this and accepts that the information has
now been provided to him. Information which should have been provided before 19/04/2011 as per the
order of the FAA has been provided to him only on 12/07/2011 after a delay of 82 days. The
respondent states that they were trying to get an additional benefit for the appellant. The PIO states
that the person responsible for the delay was Mr. Ajay Kumar, UDC.”
Decision dated 16/07/2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The information has been provided to the Appellant as per his admission.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO Mr. Alok Sharma and Mr. Ajay Kumar, UDC within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO & deemed PIO are 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 deemed PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause
notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to show
cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
Mr. Alok Sharma and Mr. Ajay Kumar, UDC will present themselves before the Commission at the
above address on 09 August 2011 at 02.20PM alongwith their written submissions showing cause
why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). It also appears that
they persistently refused to give the information inspite of repeated reminders to the respondent hence
the Commission is also considering recommending disciplinary actions under Section 20(2) against
them. They will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit
speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before
the Commission with him.”
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing on 09/08/2011:
Appellant: Mr. Virender Kumar;
Respondent: Mr. R.K. Saini, O.S. (Alt) and Mr. Ajay Kumar, LDC;
Mr. R.K. Saini appeared and stated that since the PIO Mr. Alok Sharma had to go to High
Court in another matter, he could not appear before the Commission. Mr. Saini also requested the
Commission to give one more opportunity to the PIO Mr. Alok Sharma. The Appellant submitted that
in the reply furnished to him on 12/07/2011 with regard to Query no. 3 he was requested to inspect the
Page 2 of 5
relevant records. He claimed that he went to the respondent’s office but the inspection was not
facilitated to him. Mr. R.K. Saini stated that he is not aware of the Appellant’s visit to his office.
In view of the abovesaid, the Commission now directs the PIO Mr. Alok Sharma to furnish the
information regarding the action taken on the letters/documents mentioned in Query no. 3 in the
following format:
Date on which Name and designation of Action taken Date on which forwarded to
Letter received The officer receiving it. Next officer/office.*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the letter.
Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided.
Adjunct Decision announced on 16/08/2011:
“The Commission has decided to give one more opportunity to the PIO Mr. Alok Sharma. The
PIO Mr. Alok Sharma is directed to appear before the Commission on 25/08/2011 at 03:30pm along
with the information as directed above. Mr. Alok Sharma and Mr. Ajay Kumar, UDC are directed
to appear alongwith their written submissions to show cause why penalty under Section 20(1) should
not be levied on them and disciplinary action under Section 20(2) should not be recommended against
them for not providing the information within the stipulated time. You are directed to produce before
the Commission any document you may have relied on in your written submissions. If there are
other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information who have not been included in
this show cause notice, you are directed to serve this show cause to them and direct them to appear
before the Commission along with you.”
Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 25/08/2011:
Appellant: Mr. Virender Kumar;
Respondent: Mr. Alok Sharma, PIO & Dy. Secretary and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Deemed PIO & LDC;
The Appellant points out that in query-1 of the original order the Commission has inadvertently
mentioned WP(C) No. 1267/2007 whereas it should have been 1269/2007 alongwith CCP
No.530/2010 The PIO Mr. Alok Sharma has stated that he received the Commission’s adjunct order
dated 16/08/2011 only on 23/08/2011. With regard to query no. 3 of the RTI application no
information has been furnished by him. Mr. Sharma has accepted that it is an inadvertent error on his
part and he has given assurance that he will furnish the information to the Appellant by Monday i.e.
29/08/2011. The PIO Mr. Sharma has submitted his written submissions mentioning that the FAA’s
order dated 04/04/2011 was received by the Deemed PIO & LDC Mr. Ajay Kumar. Deemed PIO Mr.
Ajay Kumar did not furnish any information and handed over the said order to the UDC Mr. Hari
Singh on 03/06/2011. UDC Mr. Hari Singh furnished the reply to the OS(Alt) Mr. R.K. Saini on
27/06/2011 and the same was sent to the Appellant.
The PIO is given one more opportunity to ensure that the information is given to
the Appellant before 30 August 2011. If there is any failure on this count the
Commission will hold the PIO personally responsible for this.
Mr. Ajay Kumar accepts that he received the FAA’s order on 05/04/2011. He also admits that on
03/06/2011 he gave this to Mr. Hari Singh, UDC. He states that he could not putup the FAA’s order to
the PIO as the file in which the information was available was in a cupboard whose keys with Mr.
Dinesh who was under suspension. Mr. Ajay Kumar states that he did not want to delay the
information intentionally but because of the lack of keys of the cupboard he did not take any action.
The Commission does not find this as a reasonable excuse. For nearly two months it is claimed that the
cupboard was locked and this must have contained various files. For an office to claim that it can
function without access to certain files for a period of two months does not appear to be reasonable.
Page 3 of 5
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 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.
As per the order of the FAA given on 04/04/2011 the information should have been provided to the
Appellant within 15 days i.e. before 19/04/2011. Instead the information has not been provided even
now. However, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Deemed PIO & LDC was responsible for the delay until 03/06/2011
i.e. for a delay of 42 days. Since no reasonable cause has been offered for the delay in providing the
information the Commission imposes a penalty on Mr. Ajay Kumar, Deemed PIO & LDC under
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. Ajay Kumar, Deemed PIO & LDC at the rate of `250/- per day of
delay for 42 days i.e. `250/- X 42 days = `10500/-
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this
a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Ajay Kumar, Deemed PIO & LDC. Since the
delay in providing the information has been of 42 days, the Commission is passing an
order penalizing Mr. Ajay Kumar `10,500/-.
Page 4 of 5
The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of
`10,500/- from the salary of Mr. Ajay Kumar 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 `3500/ per month
every month from the salary of Mr. Ajay Kumar and remitted by the 10th of every
month starting from October 2011. The total amount of `10,500/- will be remitted by
10th of December, 2011.
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
25 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AA)
Copies to:
1- The Chief Secretary
GNCT of Delhi
Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi
2- Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
3- Mr. Alok Sharma
Public Information Officer & Dy. Secretary
Land and Building Department,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
B-Block, Vikas Bhavan, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
Page 5 of 5