CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001411/14015
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001411
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Kedia
D- 84, Freedon Fighters Colony
Neb Sarai, New Delhi
Respondent(s) : Mr. Sushil Kumar
PIO & SE
Building Department,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
City Zone, MLUG Car Parking,
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 21/02/2010
PIO replied on : -
First Appeal filed on : 06/04/2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 07/04/2011
Second Appeal received on : 25/05/2011
Sl. Information Sought
A. The names of the officers who has visited the property of the applicant for the purpose of
inspection in compliance of te orders/ directions of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor in appeal titled as
Vinod Kumar kedioa v. M.C.D. with the complete details i.e. date, and time as to when such
inspection was conducted.
B. The details of such inspection and copy of the report prepared after such inspection by the officer.
C. The details of the officers date wise who have handles the representations of the applicant
submitted in the compliance with the direction of Hon'ble L.G.
D. The complete noting with the individual remarks of the technical officers who have dealt with the
said representations.
E. the details who were the competent officers including their ranks who were competent to
comment for taking a decision on said representation.
Reply of PIO:
Not mentioned.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No response/ reply to RTI application has been received within 30 days of submission of application
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Issued directions/ orders to the PIO to furnish the information sought for in the RTI application within
one week.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Respondent did not comply the orders of the FAA inspite of lapse of considerable period no
response to the order has been received.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Vinod Kumar Kedia;
Respondent: Mr. Sushil Kumar, PIO & SE;
The respondent admits that no information was sent to the Appellant until 09/08/2011. This has
not been received by the Appellant but the photocopy is being given before the Commission. The PIO
is directed to provide information if any record exist of any action being taken or communication
being made with respect to representation of the Appellant as sought in query-C.
The respondent states that the person responsible for providing the information was Mr. K. K.
Kaushik, JE(B). The RTI application had been given to him on 25/02/2011. The respondent also states
that the order of the FAA was also sent to Mr. Kaushik on
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on query-C to the Appellant
before 20 August 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
deemed PIO Mr. K. K. Kaushik, JE(B) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed PIO Mr. K. K. Kaushik, JE(B)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.
Mr. K. K. Kaushik, JE(B) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
08 September 2011 at 4.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should
not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given
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.
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
11 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (JS))
Copy through Mr. Sushil Kumar, PIO & SE to:
1- Mr. K. K. Kaushik, JE(B)