CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/00135/11592Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/00135
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Kishor Kumar,
10626, Pratap Nagar,
Gali No. 6, Delhi -110007.
Respondent : Mr. V. R. Bansal
Public Information Officer & SE,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o The Superintending Engineer (Bldg),
Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone,
Idgah Road, Behind Sadar Thana,
Delhi - 110006.
RTI application filed on : 10-08-2010
PIO replied : Not replied.
First appeal filed on : 13-09-2010
First Appellate Authority order : 20-10-2010
Second Appeal received on : 13-01-2011
Information sought:- The appellant had asked regarding unauthorized construction at house no. A-170,
Shastri Nagar in MCD ward no. 73 (Shastri Nagar).
1. Is the above mentioned construction work on the properties mentioned above is being executed
after obtaining sanctioned construction plan from the concerned zone of MCD.
2. If, yes supply us the copies of sanctioned construction plan.
3. Has the MCD been notified by its concerned field staff about this unauthorized construction
work?
4. If, yes what action has been taken by the MCD against the unauthorized construction in question
on the houses as stated above.
5. If, no what action is required to be taken against the concerned field staff of MCD
responsible for notifying MCD about this unauthorized construction.
The PIO reply:
Not replied.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply was sent to the appellant.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
“I have gone through the appeal. It revealed the application filed under RTI Act in S.P.Zone, was
forwarded to HZ (Bldg.)/SPZ under ID N0.326/SE/SPZ. But no reply was sent to applicant so far despite
the reminder given to-EE (Bldg.) by SE/SPZ. Therefore deemed P1O/EE (Bldg.)/SPZ is directed to
supply the requisite information to appellant within 10 working days as available on record under the
provision of RTI Act.”
Page 1 of 3
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No reply was provided to the appellant after ordered by FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 22 March 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Anuj Tayal, AE(B) on behalf of Mr. V. R. Bansal, Public Information Officer & SE;
“The Respondent admits that no information has been provided to the Appellant initially and also
after the order of the FAA. He claims that information was first sent to the Appellant on 18/01/2011
stating that no fresh construction was being carried out at the property about which information was
sought. A similar reply is claimed to have been sent again on 11/02/2011.
The RTI application has been filed on 10/08/2010 asking for information about an alleged unauthorized
construction. It is significant that for nearly five months no reply was sent. This almost appears to be a
collusive conspiracy so that unauthorized construction is not acknowledged until the building is complete
and subsequently it is claimed that an old building exists. The Respondent states that the PIO at the time
of the RTI application was Mr. N. K. Gupta(SE).”
Commission’s Decision dated 22 March 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The information appears to have been provided.
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. 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. N. K. Gupta the then PIO&SE will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
19 April 2011 at 2.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).”
Relevant Facts emerging during showcause hearing on 19 April 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Kishor Kumar;
Respondent: Mr. N. K. Gupta the then Public Information Officer & SE, SP Zone;
The Respondent states that he had sought the assistance of Mr. V. S. Rai, JE (B) on 18/08/2010
under Section-5(4) of the RTI Act to provide the information. He states that he sent reminders through
EE(B) who again sent various reminders to Mr. V. S. Rai, JE(B) who did not respond. Hence the
responsibility of not providing the information is with Mr. V. S. Rai, JE(B) whose assistance has been
sought within 08 days of the RTI Application.
Hence the Commission issues a showcause notice to Mr. V. S. Rai, JE(B) to appear before the
Commission on 18 May 2011 at 03.00PM to showcause why penalty under Section-20(1) should not be
imposed on him
Page 2 of 3
Adjunct Decision:
The Commission directs Mr. V. S. Rai to appear before the Commission on
18 May 2011 at 03.00PM to showcause whey penalty under Section-20(1) should not be
imposed on 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
19 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(BK)
CC:
To,
Mr. V. S. Rai, JE(B) through Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE Sadar Paharganj Zone.
Page 3 of 3