CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000537/12251
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000537
Appellant : Mr. Rajinder Parsad Singhal
K. No. 312, Agarsen Market,
Babana Road, Narela,
Delhi - 110040
Respondent : Dr. B. M. Mishra
PIO & SDM(Narela)
Revenue Department, GNCTD
O/o Sub Divisional Magistrate,
MPCC Building, Naya Bass,
New Delhi
RTI application filed on : 16/07/2010
PIO replied : 03/12/2010
First Appeal filed on : --------------
FAA's order : 25/10/2010
Hearing Notice Issued on : 04/04/2011
Date of Hearing : 04/05/2011
Information Sought:-
1) Provide the copy of the documents of the Case no. 1960/RA/N/08 dated 17/05/2010.
2) Provide the true copy of the left part for the same case.
Reply from the PIO:-
In compliance of First Appellant Authority/ Deputy Commissioner (North West) vide appeal No.
241/RTI/DC (NW)/2010/10330 dated 05/10/2010. I am to inform you that the case file titled GS Banker
v/s Rajender Prasad Singhal has already been sent to the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi on dated
05/06/2010. On receipt / return back of the said case file, the certified copy will be issued accordingly.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by PIO.
FAA's Order:-
1) Present appeal has been filed Shri Rajender Parsad Singhal S/o Shri Deep Chand, K No 312, Agarsen
Market, Bawana Road, Narela , Delhi- 110040 dated 27/09/2010 against his RTI application dated
16/07/2010 stating therein that he is not satisfied with the information supplied by HO.
2) Summons were issued to PIO/SDM (NL) and appellant for their appearance before the undersigned on
20/10/2010. Present Shri Rajinder Parsad Singhal appellant . Shri Tribhuvan, LDC present from the side
of PIO/SDM(NL)
3) On perusal of the records, it is found that PIO/SDM(NL) has not furnished the information to the
appellant even after filling of form CA-I. Therefore. PIO/SDM(NL) is directed to supply the information
to the appellant within 15 days time under
intimation to this office.
Page 1 of 3
4) Appeal is disposed off. Ordered accordingly. All concerned may be informed If the appellant is not
satisfied with this order, he may file 2nd appeal in CIC
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Rajinder Parsad Singhal;
Respondent: Mr. Ashok Sharma, NT on behalf of Dr. B. M. Mishra, PIO & SDM(Narela);
The Appellant had sought a photocopy of the file relating to case no. 1960/RA/N/08 of
17/05/2010. Initially the then PIO Mr. Ashish Mohan refused to give the information under Right to
Information and asked the Appellant to file the CA-1 form with requisite fees. This action of the PIO was
not in consonance with the law since the applicant has asked for the infroamtion under RTI Act, which as
per Section-22(2) overrides all earlier law on the statute. After this the Appellant paid the relevant fee and
applied with the CA-1 form on 10/08/2010 but the information was not supplied to him. After the order of
the FAA on 25/10/2010 he was given the photocopy of file number 1954. Hence the Appellant had to
come to the Commission. It is obvious that the PIO has been deliberately not providing the information
and harassing the Appellant unnecessarily. After the order of the FAA on 03/12/2010 when the Appellant
had pointed out that he had been given the photocopy of the wrong file. The PIO wrote a letter to him
telling him that the file which he wanted had been sent to the Divisional Commissioner on 05/06/2010 and
the photocopy will be given to him when the file comes back.
The PIO has very clearly harassed the Appellant and not given information which was due to him.
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.
In view of this the Commission awards a compensation of Rs.2000/- to the Appellant for the loss and
detriment suffered by him by the clear harassment in not providing the information. The appellant has not
been provided information for a very long time.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs Mr. Ashok Sharma, NT to provide the attested photocopy
of the entire file to the appellant free of cost to the appellant before 25 May 2011.
The Commission also directs Dr. B. M. Mishra present PIO to ensure that a cheque of
Rs.2000/- is sent to the Appellant before 30 June 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the then
PIO Mr. Ashish Mohan within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the then 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.
Page 2 of 3
Mr. Asish Mohan the then PIO/SDM (Narela) will present himself before the Commission at the above
address on 02 June 2011 at 4.00pm 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.
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
04 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)
CC: To,
Mr. Ashish Mohan the then PIO/SDM(Narela) through Dr. B. M. Mishra present
PIO/SDM(Narela);
Page 3 of 3