CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00061//SG/0794
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00061/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Sh. Ashok Gupta,
R/o 88-Bank Enclave,
Delhi – 110092
Respondent 1 : PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Shahadra South Zone,
Shahadra,
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 27/06/2008 PIO replied : not mentioned. First appeal filed on : 31/07/2008 First Appellate Authority order : not mentioned. Second Appeal filed on : 19/09/2008
The appellant has asked in his RTI application regarding completion certificate
in r/o House no. 88, Bank Enclave, Delhi – 110092.
Detail of required information:-
1. Copy of completion certificate in r/o House no. 88, Bank Enclave, Delhi –
110092.
2. Copy of notings and correspondence on the application of my father and the
then owner, late Shri G.P. Gupta, for issue of completion certificate in r/o
House no. 88, Bank Enclave, Delhi – 110092.
3. Undertaking, if any, furnished by my father, late Shri G.P. Gupta to DDA
(records since transferred to MCD) in regard to payment of peripheral charges
as may be revised by DDA.
The PIO replied.
Not mentioned.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
Not mentioned.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant : Sh. Ashok Gupta
Respondent : Absent
From the submission of the appellant and the papers presented before the Commission
it appears that no reply at all has been given to the appellant either by the PIO or the
First appellate authority. This appears to be blatant denial of the Citizen’s Right to
Information.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 20 January, 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying any information by the PIO
within 30 days as required by the law.
It also appears that the First appellate authority has failed to do his duty.
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 2 February
2009 at 5.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should
not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
31 December, 2008
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)