CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001019/12907
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001019
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Ritu Saluja,
No. 196, Gali No.10,
Savoli Bagh, Nand Nagri,
Delhi-93
Respondent : Mr. V. R. Bansal
Public Information Officer & SE (SPZ),
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone,
Idgah Road, Paharganj, Delhi
RTI application filed on : 03/01/2011
PIO replied on : 17/01/2011
First Appeal filed on : 15/02/2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 24/03/2011
Second Appeal received on : 18/04/2011
Information Sought PIO`s Response
Why have 18 hotels not been sealed and been given notice of a few days, in This information is
contrast to the 3 that have already been shut down? available in Master
Has the MCD served a notice on all the hotels where there was a violation Plan 2021. For
found? Provide a list of these hotels. additional information,
How many hotels have been served notices already and how many more will the office can be
follow? contracted on any
Provide a certified copy of the licenses of the hotels on which the MCD has working day.
served notice.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information received was incomplete.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA directed that the Appellant inspect the records and take the copies as required since the
information sought is voluminous.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The information was incomplete.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Ms. Ritu Saluja;
Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant had sought information only about 21 (18+3) Hotels. The Appellant also states
that she would be satisfied if she was provide details of any action taken from 2008 to till date. It
appears that the PIO has not provided the information without any reasonable cause. Providing
information about 21 hotels based on records for a period of less than four years cannot be called
voluminous as determined by the FAA.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information sought by the Appellant
before 05 July 2011.
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.
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 08 July 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.
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
16 June 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (DW))