CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110066
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000163/2269
Appeal No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000163
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. R. M.Sehgal,
Flat No. 970, Pocket GH-14,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087.
Respondent : Superintending Engineer & PIO,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner,
West Zone; Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 22/11/2007
PIO replied : not replied.
First appeal filed on : not mentioned
First Appellate Authority order : 22/08/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 30/01/2009
The appellant had asked in his RTI application as follows:-
1. Whether the MCD Engineers are authorized and empowered to permit
construction of structure by encroaching upon common open space as has been
raised by occupier of Flat No. 758, GH-14, Paschim Vihar or not.
2. The basis on which it has been concluded that the structure has been raised in the
rear open court yard of flat no. 758, especially when no such open court yard has
been provided by DDA in the authorized allotted premises.
3. Whether the structure raised by the occupant of flat No. 758, Pocket GH-14, has
been raised by encroaching on common open space, designed and provided by
DDA for maintaining privacy, adequate circulation of air, natural light and Sun
or in the open court yard as projected by your office
It is requested that any ambiguity in the information may be a cause of embarrassment
for your organization as it may be scrutinized by legal experts in court. It is requested
that ambiguity that ambiguity in language of reply be avoided.
The PIO replied.
Not replied.
The Fist Appellate Authority Ordered:
“In the hearing fixed on 19.08.2008, the Ex. En. (B)-I/WZ and the appellant
attended the hearing the Ex. En. (B)-I/WZ is directed to obtain the clarification with
regard to the queries raised by the appellant from the Building (HQ). The reply be
sought and forwarded to the appellant within 15 days time but not later than
03.09.2008.”
Inspite of this the appellant did not receive any communication from the PIO.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 10 April, 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information
by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
It also appears that the First appellate authority’s orders have not been implemented.
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 give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed
on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 15 April, 2009. He will also submit
proof of having given the information to the appellant.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
18th March, 2009
(For any further correspondence, please mention the decision number for a quick disposal)