CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/ 002161/9096
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/ 002161
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Vinay Gupta,
BU- 54, SFS Flats, Pitampura,
Delhi-110034
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi, Narela,
BDO Office Complex,
Alipur, Delhi- 110036
RTI application filed on : 06/03/2010 (Received at O/o ADM (NW)
on 09/03/2010 and transferred to PIO/ SDM
(NL) on 12/03/2010)
PIO replied on : No reply
First Appeal filed on : 04/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order of : 24/05/2010
Second Appeal received on : 28/07/2010
Information Sought:
1. The action taken by the concerned authority on the Appellant’s complaint.
2. Name and designation of the official who has been appointed to look into the
complaint filed by the Appellant.
3. Action taken against the persons specified in the RTI application who have sold
off the land illegally.
4. Whether FIR was lodged against the defaulters mentioned in the complaint and if
not, specify reasons for the same.
5. Describe whether the adjacent land belongs to the Gram Sabha or not.
6. Action taken by the department against the officials who did not respond and take
actions on the complaint filed by the Appellant.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
No information was provided by the PIO.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No information was furnished by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA observed that PIO/ SDM (NL) had not furnished any information to the
Appellant. The PIO/ SDM (NL) was directed to supply the information to the Appellant
within 15 days.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No information was given by the PIO and non- compliance of the order of the FAA.
Decision:
The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. The FAA has
given a clear order dated 24/05/2010 directing the PIO/ SDM (NL) to supply the
information to the Appellant within 15 days. The Appellant has not been provided with
the information requested for despite the order of the FAA. The Commission therefore
directs the PIO/ SDM (NL) to provide the information requested for by the Appellant.
Denial of information to an Appellant under the RTI Act can only be done if what is
sought is not “information” as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act or is exempt
under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO/ SDM (NL) has neither claimed that it is not
“information” nor has he claimed that it is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
The Appeal is allowed. The PIO/ SDM (Narela) is directed to provide the complete
information requested by the Appellant before September 20, 2010.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO/ SDM (NL) is guilty of
not furnishing information within the time specified under Section 7(1) by not replying
within 30 days as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the
orders of the FAA, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may
also be mala fide. The FAA has clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears
that the actions of the PIO/ SDM (NL) attract the penal provisions of Section 20(1) of the
RTI Act. A show cause notice is being issued to him and he is directed to 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 October 8, 2010
at 11:30 am along with his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not
be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. 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 and for not
complying with the order of the FAA, the PIO/ SDM (NL) is directed to inform such
persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with
him.
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 the RTI
Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
August 30, 2010
(For any further correspondence on this matter, please mention the file number quoted above.) (VK)