Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Ravi Kumar vs O/O The Sub-Divisional … on 15 April, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr. Ravi Kumar vs O/O The Sub-Divisional … on 15 April, 2010
                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                    Club Building (Near Post Office)
                  Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                         Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                            Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000193/7476
                                               Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000193

Complainant                         :        Mr. Ravi Kumar
                                             KG-1/543, Vikaspuri
                                             New Delhi-110018

Respondent                          :       Public Information Officer
                                            SDM, (Patel Nagar Sub-Division)
                                            O/o the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
                                            Old Middle School Building Complex
                                            Rampura, New Delhi-110035

Facts

arising from the Complaint:

Mr. Ravi Kumar filed a RTI application with the PIO, O/o the Deputy
Commissioner (West), Delhi on 15/10/2010 asking certain information. However on not
having received any information within the mandated time, the Complainant filed a
complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. On this basis, the
Commission issued a notice to PIO, O/o the Deputy Commissioner (West), GNCTD,
Delhi on 23/02/2010 directing the PIO to provide information to the Complainant and
further sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated
time.

The Commission received a letter dated 09/03/2010 from the SDM (West), Patel
Nagar stating that information has been provided to the Complainant vide a letter dated
13/01/2010, copy of which was enclosed. On perusal of the information it appears that
information provided on Query No. 2, 3 and 4 is not addressing the information sought
vide these queries as such. The PIO has provided copy of a letter dated 26/08/2009 (in
response to the three said queries) wherein a mention of a letter dated 25/07/2009 of IIM
Kozhikode is made which appears to be ideally speaking of the original verification
request/letter sent in by the IIM to the SDM (West District). Therefore, in the present
matter; the letter which is possibly relevant to the information sought appears to be the
initial letter dated 25/07/2009 of IIM Kozhikode. Further, the PIO has given no reasons
for the delay in providing the information to the RTI Application dated 15/10/2009. From
the facts before the Commission it appears that there has been a delay of over 50 days on
the part of the PIO in providing the information to the Complainant.

Decision:

The Complaint is allowed.

In view of the aforesaid, the PIO/SDM (West District) is hereby directed to
provide the copy of the aforesaid letter dated 25/07/2009 of IIM Kozhikode
communicated to SDM (Punjabi Bagh/ West District) to the Complainant in regard to the

Page 1 of 2
aforesaid three queries before 07/05/2010. Copy of the information should be sent to the
Commission before 12/05/2010.

Further, in view of the facts before the Commission, it is apparent that the PIO
has failed to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and 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 and disciplinary action of Section 20 (1) and (2). The PIO is
hereby directed to submit his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not
be imposed and disciplinary action be recommended against him under Section 20 (1)
and (2) of the RTI Act before 12/05/2010.

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,
2005.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15/04/2010

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SP)

Page 2 of 2
Page 3 of 2