CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000095/11518Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000095
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Murlidhar Tiwari
116 Shiv Shankar, Purana Kapra Market,
Pul Qutub Road, Sadar Bazaar,
Delhi-110006.
Respondent : Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar
Asstt. Commissioner & PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o Asstt. Commissioner,
Shahdara (North Zone), Keshav Chowk,
Near Shyam Lal College, Shahdara,
Delhi-110093.
RTI application filed on : 22/08/2010
PIO replied : 27/11/2010
First appeal filed on : 30/11/2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not ordered
Second Appeal received on : 10/01/2011
Sr.No. Information sought Reply of PIO
1. Ward wise details of Tehbazari fee The information was not sought from the Shahdara North
due as on 31/03/2011 on the Zone, however, 181 PCO booths measuring 6"*4" was at
tehabazari holder having different Loni Road, 31 at Mochi Market, G T Road, Shahdara and 24
size of tehbazari in north Zone. PCO booths measuring 7"*5" was in Shahdara North Zone.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
Not ordered.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO and no action taken by FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 17 March 2011:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Murlidhar Tiwari;
Respondent : Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar, AC & PIO; Mr. Raman Kumar, RTI Clerk;
“The Appellant shows that he had sent the first appeal by speed post no. ED198046877IN on
30/11/2010 but no order has been issued by the FAA. The First Appellate Authority Mr. Azimul Huq
appears to be guilty of dereliction of duty since he does not appear to have passed any order in the matter.
Page 1 of 4
The First Appellate Authority Mr. Azimul Huq is directed to present himself before the
Commission with his explanation on 07 April 2011 at 4.00pm to showcause why the Commission
should not recommend disciplinary action against him for dereliction of duty.
The PIO has provided the completely irrelevant and irresponsible reply to the RTI query. The appellant
sought details of balance Tehbazari dues and there is no mention of Tehbazari dues in the information.”
Commission’s Decision dated 17 March 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as sought by the Appellant
before 05 April 2011.
The Commission also directs the FAA Mr. Azimul Huq to appear before the Commission
on 07 April 2011 at 04.00PM.
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 appears 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 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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 07 April 2011 at 04.00pm
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.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 17 March 2011:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Murlidhar Tiwari;
Respondent : Mr. Raman Kumar, RTI Clerk; Mr. B. S. Mankotia, AO on behalf of Mr. Ravideep Singh
Chahar, PIO & Assistant Commissioner ; Mr. Kapil Sharma, LDC;
First Appellate Authority Mr. Azimul Huq has not sent any explanation why he did nto pass an
order in discharge of his duty as First Appellate Authority. The Commission gives him on more
opportunity to present him before the Commission on 06 May 2011 at 04.00PM with his explanation. If
he does not appear or send any written submission it would be assumed that he has no explanation
to offer and the Commission will decide on the matter.
The Appellant has received the information which was sent by the PIO on 05 April 2011 and states
that he is satisfied with this. The PIO has not come but has sent his explanation in writing vide letter no.
AC/SHAH(N)/2011/6692 of 05/04/2011. He has stated that the Appellant had filed the RTI Application
on 21/08/2010 seeking information regarding Tehbazari Fees. He has stated that the application was not
properly examined by the dealing assistant and a part reply was sent to the Appellant by mistake. He has
stated that a concerned dealing assistant has been issued a showcause and warned. The explanation given
by the PIO Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar is completely inadequate. The Appellant had only sought the
amount of dues from Tehbazaries. The information that has been provided stated that there were certain
number of Tehbazari booths and PCOs. This can by no stretch of imagination can be considered a part
reply to the Appellant’s request for information.
Page 2 of 4
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.
The RTI application had been filed on 22/08/2010 and the information should have been provided to the
Appellant before 22/09/2010. Instead the information has been provided to the Appellant only on
05/04/2011 i.e. after the order of the Information Commission. No reasonable cause has been advanced by
the PIO for not providing the information within the 30 day period to the Appellant. In view of this the
Commission imposes a penalty on the PIO Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar, PIO & Assistant Commissioner
under Section-20(1) of the RTI Act. Since the delay in providing the information has been for over 100
days the Commission imposes the maximum penalty of `25000/- under the RTI Act.
Page 3 of 4
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission
finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar, PIO & Assistant
Commissioner. Since the delay in providing the information has been over 100 days, the
Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar `25000/ which is
the maximum penalty under the Act.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the
amount of `25000/- from the salary of Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar 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
`5000/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar and
remitted by the 10th of every month starting from May 2011. The total amount of
`25000 /- will be remitted by 10th of September, 2011.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
07 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AK)
CC:
To,
1- Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Delhi- 110006
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
3- Mr. Azimul Huq, Frist Appellate Authority through Mr. Raman Kumar, RTI Clerk;
Page 4 of 4