CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000390/11978
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000390
Relevant Facts
emerging from the appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Hanif
856, Shish Mahal, 2nd Floor,
Bhadurgadh Road,
Delhi-110006
Respondent : Mr. V. R. Bansal
PIO & Superintending Engineer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Office of the Superintending Engineer,
SP Zone, Idgarh Road behind
Sadar Police Station,
Pahar Ganj, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 20/08/2010
PIO replied : Not replied
First appeal filed on : 11/10/2010
FAAs order : 23/11/2010
Second appeal filed on : 03/01/2011
Information Sought:
Information regarding the following was sought by the applicant:
1) Provide the certified copy of the report issued on 06/07/2010 to Mr. V.S. Raj(J.E.).
2) Provide the copy of the report prepared during the investigation made against the reconstruction of
house no.-8893.
3) Appellant wants the copy of the investigation made against the report of illegal construction of
house no. 8892-93 dated 20/11/2008 and 02/12/2008.
4) Complaint made on 20/11/2008 EE(B) and 02/12/2008 to DC has been looked by which EE,AE,JE.
Also provide the copy of the action that has been taken against the illegal construction of house no.-
8892,93
5) Who is responsible for the late action against the above mentioned complaints?
6) Provide the copy of the showcause notice made against the illegal construction of house no.-
8892,93. also provide the copy of D.O. if passed by the department.
7) Provide the copy if any reply has been made related to the showcause notice.
8) no sanction plan has been passed against the unauthorized house no.-8892,93. has department taken
any step against it or will take any step in the future. Please provide the copy of the same.
PIO’s reply:
On reply received.
First Appeal:
The appellant has not received the reply from the PIO.
First appellate authority’s Order:
I have gone through the appeal. It revealed that the application filed under RTI Act vide receipt no.
BZ-1300063 of Rs. 10 dt. 20.08.10 in S.P.Zone. Application was forwarded to EE(B)/SPZ under Id
no. 343/SE/SPZ. But no reply was given to applicant so far despite the reminder issued to EE(B)/SPZ
by SE,SPZ. Therefore, deemed PIO/EE(B)SPZ is directed to provide the requisite information the
appellant within, l0 working days as available on record under the provision of RTI Act.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
No information provided. No action being taken on my complaints of unauthorized construction given
in 2008 and 2009.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent : Mr. I. U. Khan, AE on behalf of Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE;
The Respondent claims that the reply has been sent to the Appellant for the first time on
19/01/2011. He has no proof of having sent the reply to the appellant on 19/01/2011. In the so called
reply the Appellant has been asked to pay additional fee of Rs.02/- per page. The Deemed PIO was
Mr. Inderjeet Singh the then EE(B) SP Zone. Despite the order of the FAA no information has been
provided to the Appellant. It is evident that the appellant has been harassed by the very casual way in
which the PIO and various officers have dealt with it.
The Commission under its powers under Section-19(8)(b) of the RTI Act awards a compensation of
Rs.2000/- to the Appellant for the harassment of having to file the second appeal and waiting for the
information. The compensation is being given to the Appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by
him.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs Mr. I. U. Khan to ensure that the complete information
is sent to the Appellant before 05 May 2011.
The PIO is directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.2000/- is sent to the Appellant before
30 May 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
Deemed PIO was Mr. Inderjeet Singh the then EE(B) SP Zone 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. 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.
The Deemed PIO was Mr. Inderjeet Singh the then EE(B) SP Zone will present himself before the
Commission at the above address on 13 May 2011 at 03.00pm 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.
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
13 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RJ)
CC:
To,
The Deemed PIO was Mr. Inderjeet Singh the then EE(B) SP Zone through Mr. V. R. Bansal,
PIO & SE;