CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003337/10581
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003337
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Tek Chand Sharma,
D-39, Gali No.1,
Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053
Respondent : Public Information Officer & DEO,
Education Department
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Shahdara North Zone,
Keshav Chowk Red Light,
Opposite Welcome Metro Station,
Welcome Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
RTI application filed on : 04/06/2010 PIO replied : Not mentioned. First appeal filed on : 03/08/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 03/09/2010 Second Appeal received on : 26/11/2010 Information Sought:
The appellant had sought information regarding the letter dated 1.5.06 written by the appellant to the Asst.
Education Officer:
1. On the basis of the subject of the above mentioned letter and the regulations of the dept., what
action should be taken reasonably.
2. If any reasonable action has been taken then provide the detailed information of the same and also
mention the reasons because of which the problem is still not solved.
3. If no action has been taken on the above letter then the name of the officers responsible for the
same.
4. Till when the payment of the dividend amount will be made by the department, which had to be
paid in 2001.
5. Mention the name of the departments and officers whom the above letter had been sent and also
mention the dates.
Reply of the PIO:
N/A
Grounds of First Appeal:
No information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The main ground for appeal is of non receipt of information. The PIO is directed to provide the
information within 7 days of the date of receipt of this order.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No reply given by the PIO.
Decision:
The appellant has stated that despite the clear order from the FAA no information has been
provided.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed by the First Appellate Authority
to the appellant before 10 January 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
within 30 days as required by the law.
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.
It appears that 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 15 January, 2010. He will also send 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.
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
22 December 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST)