CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000897/12692
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000897
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. L.G. Dass,
Dass & Co., R-2,
Rita Block Main Market, Shakarpur,
Delhi-110 092
Respondent : Mr. Subhash
Public Information Officer & AVATO(HQ)
Department of Trade and Taxes, GNCTD
O/o Commissioner (Enforcement- I),
Vyapar Bhawan, IP Estate,
New Dethi-2
RTI application filed on : 22/11/2010
PIO replied : 24/12/2010
03/03/2011
First appeal filed on : 13/01/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 15/02/2011
Second Appeal received on : 04/04/2011
Notice of Hearing sent on : 09/05/2011
Hearing held on : 03/06/2011
Information sought by the appellant :
1. Please inform the progress in the matter and particulars of action taken by this public authority
against the dealer in pursuance of the aforesaid complaint dated 4/10/10 followed by the, addendum
dated 21/10/10.
2. Please also supply copies of documents, correspondence, replies and file notings etc in respect of
enquiries & investigation initiated and/or conducted by this public authority till date in this regard.
Reply of the PIO :
Reply dated 24/12/2010:
This office has received your letter dated 04.10.10 However further details in this regard cannot be
disclosed as these are prohibited under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 which inter alia states :
8 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be noobligation to give any citizen, –
h)information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of
offenders;
Reply dated 03/03/2010:
However in your case the status of enquiry/verification has changed since the date of providing
information to you in response to your original application. Now in this Report in this regard has been
forwarded to the VATO (KDU)/Assessing Authority for further necessary action at their end.
Since the matter pertains to third party information, submissions of M/s TR Sawhney is being sought
as stipulated under section 11 of the RTI Act. After the comments/submissions are received, you will
be accordingly informed.
Ground of the First Appeal :
Page 1 of 3
Information has been denied
Order of the FAA:
The PIO shall have the re-look into the issue and act in accordance with the law laid down by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.. He shall furnish the information or respond the appellant as within 15
days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The PIO has not obeyed the order of FAA
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. L.G. Dass;
Respondent: Mr. Subhash, Public Information Officer & AVATO(HQ); and Mr. O. P. Dabas, VATO;
The Appellant has filed a complaint on 04/10/2010 followed by an addendum on 21/10/2010.
He had complained that a particular dealer was using different series of retail invoices and not
charging VAT on the car accessories. Thus the Appellant had filed a complaint about some body
fraudulently depriving the state of revenue. Through this RTI application he sought the action taken on
this complaint. The PIO has not provided the information as per the order of the FAA and Mr. Subhash
has been trying to mislead the Commission by making false statements. The FAA had ordered that the
information should be provided within 15 days considering the order of the Delhi High Court in the
Bhagat Singh Case. It is apparent that the PIO had made up his mind not to provide the information.
Initially he refused to give the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act,
without giving any reasons as to how disclosing the information would impede the process of
investigation. Under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act the onus to prove the denial of information was
justified is on the PIO. The PIO did not give any justification for refusing to give the information
initially and even after the order of the FAA he did not give the information. Even before the
Commission he was not willing to give the exact position. It does not need too much imagination to
guess why there was such a resolute refusal to provide the information.
The appellant has been unnecessarily harassed by the actions of the PIO and put to trouble by having
to file the first and second appeal. Despite the order of the FAA the PIO has refused to give the
information. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally
impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and
corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging
than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to
the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of
compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him
personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in
changing the outlook.
The Commission in exercise of its powers under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act awards the
compensation of Rs.2000/- to the Appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him of having to file
the appeals and not getting the information in time.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as per records to the
Appellant before 15 June 2011. In case no action has been taken the Appellant will be
informed accordingly.
The PIO is also directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.2000/- as compensation is sent to
the Appellant before 30 July 2011.
Page 2 of 3
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.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 29 June 2011 at 10.30am
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.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before
the Commission with 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
03 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AA)
Page 3 of 3