CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003480/11048Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003480
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr Rajendra Gupta,
704 G T Road Shahadra ,
Delhi-32.
Respondent : Mr. Raj Bir Kundu
Deemed PIO & AE (West Zone Project-II),
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Under Zakhira Flyover,
New Delhi;
RTI application filed on : 25/06/2010
PIO replied : 14/07/2010
First appeal filed on : 09/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 30/09/2010
Second Appeal received on : 10/12/2010
S. No. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Present situation of plot no. DP 14 and 15 and also After receiving complaint the plots were
the investigation which has been done according to checked and which illegal constructions were
the complaint dated 07/05/2010 investigate under DMC Act.
2. Any Plan passed by the building department for the The plan is with the housing department.
said plots.
3. The construction has been done according to the The plan is passed and anything against it is
plan or more than that, investigated under DMC act.
4. Copy of the diary maintained by field officers under
ministry of urban development and poverty
elevation
First Appeal:
The information provided by the PIO was false.
Order of the FAA:
The PIO was ordered to get the photographs of the properties as asked by the appellant and also to furnish
relevant information for the question no. 4 and supply it to the appellant.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Appellant is aggrieved that the photographs have not been provided after the payment of the charges
and also the information even after lapse of 40 days has not been given.
Page 1 of 4
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 19 January 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr Rajendra Gupta;
Respondent : Mr. Yogendra Sharma, EE(B-I); Mr. Raj Bir Kundu, AE(B) & Deemed PIO;
“The PIO has provided certain information but has not provided information on query-03. The
Appellant has sought information on whether the building is being made as per the sanctioned building
plan. The PIO has not provided any answer to this query. The Respondent agrees that this information
should be in the construction watch register. The PIO is directed to give a copy of construction watch
register to the Appellant. In case if the construction watch register is not being maintained this should be
stated.
The FAA had directed the PIO to provide the copies of the photographs within two weeks. The Appellant
was asked to deposit Rs.80/- for this which he has done on 29/10/2010. The PIO has however provided
the photographs only on 05/01/2011. Mr. Raj Bir Kundu, AE(B) admits that the delay in providing the
photographs has caused because of him. He admits that he has no explanation for the delay.”
Commission’s Decision dated 19/01/2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“Mr. Yogendra Sharma, EE(B-I) is directed to give the information as directed
above to the Appellant before 30 January 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by Mr. Raj
Bir Kundu, AE(B) within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed 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. Raj Bir Kundu, AE(B) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
01 February 2011 at 11.00am 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.”
Facts leading to the showcause hearing on 09 June 2011:
Mr. Raj Bir Kundu failed to appear before the Commission on 01/02/2011. Since he did not appear before the
Commission he was against directed by show cause notice dated 21/04/2011 to appear before the Commission on
19/05/2011 along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him under
Section 20 of the RTI Act. However he had not come again and also no communications received from him
explaining his absence on 01/02/2011 and 19/05/2011.
The Commission again directed Mr. Raj Bir Kundu, Deemed PIO & AE (B) to present himself before the
Commission on June 9, 2011 at 11:00 am along with his written explanations to show cause why penalty should
not be imposed against him for defying the orders of the Commission and failing to comply with the provisions of
the RTI Act.
Page 2 of 4
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 09 June 2011:
The following were present:
Respondent : Mr. Raj Bir Kundu the then AE(B) Rohini Zone & Deemed PIO presently AE (West Zone
Project-II), MCD, Under Zakhira Flyover, New Delhi;
Mr. Kundu has given a written submission in which he has offered no cause for no having
provided the information as per the order of the FAA. The FAA had directed on 30/09/2010 that “PIO is
directed to get digital photographs for the properties as asked by the Appellant and supply the same to the
Appellant after payment of necessary fee.” The Appellant paid the necessary fee on 29/10/2010 but the
information was not provided to him. The photographs were provided to him only on 05/01/2011. Since
the additional fee had been paid by the Appellant on 29/10/2010 the photographs should have been
provided to him before 01/11/2010. Instead Mr. Raj Bir Kundu has provided it only on 05/01/2011 i.e.
after a delay of 64 days.
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
Page 3 of 4
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.
Since Mr. Raj Bir Kundu the then AE(B) Rohini Zone & Deemed PIO has not offered any reasonable
cause for the delay in providing the information as per the order of the FAA, the Commission is imposing
a penalty as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. Raj Bir Kundu the then AE(B) Rohini Zone &
Deemed PIO at the rate of `250/- per day of delay for 64 days i.e. `16000/-.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a
fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Raj Bir Kundu the then AE(B) Rohini Zone & Deemed
PIO. Since the delay in providing the information has been of 64 days, the Commission is
passing an order penalizing Mr. Raj Bir Kundu `16,000/-.
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the
amount of `16,000/- from the salary of Mr. Raj Bir Kundu 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 `4000/ per
month every month from the salary of Mr. Raj Bir Kundu and remitted by the 10th of every
month starting from July 2011. The total amount of `16,000/- will be remitted by 10th of
October, 2011.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
09 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AM)
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
Page 4 of 4