CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110066
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000314/2460
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000314
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. M.K. Sharam,
Chamber No. 677,
Patiala House Court,
New Delhi-110001.
Respondent : D.E.O & PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Shahdara North Zone, Keshav Chowk,
Shahdara, Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 13/06/2008 APIO : not replied First Appeal filed on : 28/08/2008 First Appellate Authority order : 29/09/2008 Second Appeal filed on : 12/01/2009
The appellant had asked in RTI application that gives me action taken
report on complaint against (Param Hans Convent School in the Residential
Area) by M.K. Sharma. But the appellant had not attached complaint copy with the
RTI file.
The PIO replied.
Not replied.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
“Sh. M.K. Shamra, vide his application for information dated 13.06.2008
had sought information regarding Param Hans Convent School in the Residential
Area.
No information has been provided in the matter by PIO/DEO Shahdara
North Zone, PIO is directed to provide the information to the appellant within 10
days.”
Inspite of this the appellant did not receive any communication from the PIO.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 15 April, 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required
information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
It also appears that the First appellate authority’s orders have not been
implemented.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the 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. He has
further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable
doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate
Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
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.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 20 April, 2009. He will
also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
26th March, 2009
(In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)