CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002757/10195Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002757
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. RL Makhija
R/o G-14,
Gali No. 4, Arjun Nagar
Delhi -110051
Respondent : Mr. N. C. Sharma,
PIO & SE- I,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Rohini Zone, Sector- 5, Rohini
Delhi-110085
RTI application filed on : 05/04/2010
PIO replied : 19/04/2010
First appeal filed on : 23/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 22/07/2010
Second Appeal received on : 29/09/2010
S. No Information Sought (on 14 queries, but was Reply of the Public Information Officer
unsatisfied with reply to the following queries)(PIO) (19/04/2010)*
5 Details regarding the Education Qualification ofApplication transferred to AC Rohini Zone, to
Mr. Sanjay Singh provide information from the service book.
8 Where did Mr. Sanjay serve before joining MCD, Same as above(as per offer of appointment
provide experience copy. letter)
9. Details of Mr. Sanjay after joining MCD till dated
Third party information, property details cannot
on yearly basis as claimed by him. be disclosed.
10. Copy of last 10 years Income Tax Returns Application transferred to AC Rohini Zone, to
provide information from the service book.
12. When Mr. Sanjay was serving as JE, how many Same as 5
Measurement Books were issued & deposited by
him ?(Details required for current and previous
all departments)
13. How many bills are pending in the department Same as 5
when Mr. Sanjay was JE in Div 1.
* Reply provided by the O/o Addl. DY. Commissioner, Engineering Deptt.
The reply provided by the SE Rohini Zone I on 30/04/2010 is as follows:
5. Matric, ISC, BA, Diploma in Civil Engineering(as per service book)
8. No such record available in this office
9. Pertains to PP Deptt., Town Hall
10. Third party information, cannot be disclosed.
12. Information sought vague, attend office during work hours to seek the information.
13. Refer to 12.
The reply provided by the SE RH-I on 04/08/2010 is as follows:
5. Matric, ISC, BA, Diploma in Civil Engineering (as per service book); information is correct but
copies cannot be provided as it is not available on record.
8. No such information is available.
9. Can be obtained from AD(Engineering), HQ
10. Third party information cannot be disclosed.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO on Query Nos. 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12 & 13
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA ordered that the PIO under section 5(4) of the RTI Act, collect information w.r.t. Query Nos. 2,
5, 8, 9, & 10 and give it to the Appellant.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply by the PIO w.r.t. Query No. 5, 8, 9, 10, 12 & 13
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on November 29, 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. R.L. Makhija;
Respondent: Absent;
“The Appellant states that inspite of the clearly order of the FAA he has no information from the
PIO on queries 5, 8, 9, 10, 12 & 13. The PIO has claimed no exemption under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act
and the FAA has clearly directed the PIO to collect the information from the Deemed PIOs under Section
5(4) of the RTI Act and to furnish the same to the Appellant within a period of 03 weeks. It appears that
the order of the FAA has not been implemented by the PIO.”
Decision dated November 29, 2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to give the information on queries 5, 8, 9, 10, 12 & 13 to the
Appellant before 20 December 2010.
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 is apparent 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 30 December 2010 at 11.30am
alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated
under Section 20 (1). He will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision
and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent 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.
It also appears that they persistently refused to give the information inspite of repeated reminders to the
respondent hence the Commission is also considering recommending disciplinary actions under Section
20(2) against them.”
Facts leading to show cause hearing held on February 8, 2011:
At the show cause hearing held on 30/12/2010, neither party appeared before the Commission. Therefore,
by show cause notice dated 21/01/2011, the parties were once again directed to appear before the
Commission on 08/02/2011 for a show cause hearing.
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on February 8, 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. N. C. Sharma, PIO & SE- I, Mr. R. K. Sharma, EE (M) – IV and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, JE
(M) – II.
The Commission noted that as per the order of the FAA dated 22/07/2010, information was required to be
provided on queries 2, 5, 8, 9 and 10 to the Appellant within three weeks. Certain information was sent to
the Appellant vide letter dated 02/08/2010. On perusal of letter dated 02/08/2010, the Commission noted
that information provided in relation to queries 2, 5 and 8 was satisfactory. The Respondents stated that
they did not receive a copy of the Commission’s order dated 29/11/2010. However, on receipt of the
Commission’s notice dated 21/01/2010, information on query 10 was provided to the Appellant vide letter
dated 07/02/2011.
As regards query 9, the Respondents stated that the information sought pertained to A. O. (Engineering),
MCD (HQ). Assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act was sought initially from the A. O.
(Engineering) and in the reply dated 19/04/2010, it was communicated to the Appellant that the A. O.
(Engineering) did not provide any information on query 9 as it was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the
RTI Act. Therefore, information on query 9 has not been provided to the Appellant till date even after the
FAA’s order as well as the order of the Commission. The FAA had clearly ordered that information on
query 9 must be provided to the Appellant and therefore, it was implied that the exemption sought by the
A. O. (Engineering) was not applicable. The PIO & SE must seek assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI
Act and the A. O. (Engineering) is bound to provide the information sought under query 9 of the RTI
application.
Adjunct Decision announced on February 9, 2011:
The Commission hereby directs Mr. N. C. Sharma, PIO & SE- I to seek assistance under Section 5(4) of
the RTI Act from the A. O. (Engineering), MCD (HQ) and provide the complete information on query 9
to the Appellant before March 10, 2011.
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
February 9, 2011
CC: Copy of Commission’s order dated 29/11/2010.
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(JA)