CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000106/11541Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000106
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Dr. M .M Mittal
B 2/4, Model Town
Delhi-110009
Respondent (1) : Mr. A. K. Mittal
the then AE (CLZ)
presently AE(Pr-I),
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
South Zone, Under Sevanagar Flyover,
New Delhi-11
(2) : Mr. V. P. Dahiya
the then EE(B)
presently EE(M-VI)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Central Zone, Andrews Ganj,
New Delhi;
(3) : Mr. R. Prasad
Public Information Officer & SE
Office of Superintending Engineer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Civil Lines Zone, 16 Rajpur Road,
New Delhi
(4) : Mr. J. S. Yadav,
EE (B) & Deemed PIO
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
South Zone, Green Park,
New Delhi - 110016
RTI application filed on : 12/08/2010
PIO replied : 10/11/2010.
First appeal filed on : 22/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 01/11/2010
Second Appeal received on : 11/01/2011
S.No Information sought by the appellant Reply of the PIO
1. Provide Photostat copies of the notes on the file
whereby you have informed the appellant that "after
the order of FAA no inspection of the house has been
carried out" and reasons for non compliance of order
of FAA.
Page 1 of 7
2. Provide photocopy of the sanction plan of the building Property was regularized on 24/5/2007
no B2/3A, Model Town, Delhi in the name of Ramesh Modi and
Shyama Modi
First Appeal:
Reply was not provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
On inquiring from the office of the PIO/SE(CLZ) it has been revealed that the requisite
information has not been sent to the Appellant will date. The PIO is directed to furnish the
information from his records to the Appellant within a period of 10 working days.
PIO replied on 16/11/2010 that ” It is to inform that property in question was regularized on
24/05/07 in the names of Shri Ramesh Modi and Smt. Shyama Modi as per records.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Reply to the question asked was not provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 18 March 2011:
The following were present
Appellant : Dr. M .M Mittal;
Respondent : Absent;
“The appellant states that the information sought by him was not provided by the PIO even
on 10/11/2010. A perusal of the information shows very clearly that information has not been
provided. The Appellant shows that some more information had been sent to him by the PIO on
28/01/2011 which shows that after the order of the FAA no action had been taken until the
Commission had given an order in another matter. The Appellant also states that in the
information sent to him he has been given a sanction plan of 1990. The Appellant claims that a
new building has been constructed after 2004. He wants a copy of the plan which was sanctioned
for construction of building after 2004. If no such sanction plan exists this should be stated.”
Commission’s Decision dated 18 March 2011:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to provide the sanction plan of the building after 2004 to the
Appellant before 05 April 2011. If no such plan exist this should be stated.
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.
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 11 April 2011 at 4.30pm
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.”
Page 2 of 7
Relevant Facts emerging during showcause hearing on 11 April 2011:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. N. K. Yadav, AE on behalf of Mr. R. Prasad, PIO & SE;
“The Respondent shows that he has provided the information to the Appellant on
30/03/2011. The RTI application had been filed on 12/08/2010 and the information should have
been provided before 12/09/2010. The Appellant had sought information only on two simple
queries. Yet the first reply was given to the Appellant only on 10/11/2010 i.e. after the order of the
FAA. This reply also did not provide information that has been sought by the Appellant.
Consequently he filed the second appeal before the Commission and reply has been provided to
the Appellant on 30/03/2011 i.e. after the order of the Information Commission. The Commission
asked the Respondent for explanation for this delay. He states that he believes all the information
has been given to the Appellant in earlier RTI application.
The Respondent has given a letter from the PIO in which he states that on 16/08/2010 assistance
has been sought from Mr. A. K. Mittal, EE(B) who did not act on it until 16/11/2010. The
submission states that the FAA’s order to provide information within 10 days was sent to Mr. V.
P. Dahiya the then EE(B). He therefore states that Mr. A. K. Mittal and Mr. V. P. Dahiya are
responsible for the delay.”
Adjunct Decision on 11 April 2011:
“The Commission directs the then Executive Engineers (B) Mr. A. K. Mittal and Mr. V. P.
Dahiya to appear before the Commission on 16 May 2011 at 04.00PM to showcause why penalty
under Section-20(1) should not be imposed on them for not providing the information within the
time mandated under RTI Act.”
Facts leading to the showcause hearing on 14 September 2011:
“In the above referred matter, the Commission had passed an order on 11 April 2011
directing the deemed PIOs Mr. A. K. Mittal and Mr. V. P. Dahiya to present themselves before the
Commission on 16/05/2011 at 04:00PM. The Commission had also directed the PIO Mr. R. Prasad
to serve the showcause notice to Mr. Mittal and Mr. Dahiya.
However the Commission has not received any written explanations from the deemed PIOs
Mr. Mittal and Mr. Dahiya for not presenting themselves before the Commission on 16/05/2011. It
appears that they are malafidely and consistently defying the orders of the Commission and there
seems to be no valid ground of denying information to the Appellant. Therefore the Commission
hereby summons Mr. A. K. Mittal and Mr. V. P. Dahiya to present themselves before the
Commission on 14/09/2011 at 04.30PM alongwith their written submissions to showcause why
penalty under Section 20(1) should not be imposed and disciplinary action should not be
recommended under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act.
The Commission also directs Mr. R. Prasad, PIO & SE to ensure the presence of Mr. A. K.
Mittal and Mr. V. P. Dahiya on 14/09/2011 at 04.30PM. Mr. R. Prasad will serve this notice to
Mr. Dahiya and Mr. Mittal and direct them to appear before the Commission alongwith their
written submissions to show cause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be imposed and
disciplinary action should not be recommended against them for defying the orders of the
commission and failing to comply with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 on 14/09/2011 at
04.30PM.”
Page 3 of 7
Relevant Facts emerging during showcause hearing on 14 September 2011:
The following were present
Appellant : Dr. M .M Mittal;
Respondent : Mr. A. K. Mittal the then AE (CLZ) presently AE(Pr-I), South Zone, Under
Sevanagar Flyover, New Delhi-11 and Mr. V. P. Dahiya the then EE(B) presently EE(M-VI)
Central Zone, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi;
When the RTI Application was filed on 12/08/2010, Mr. A. K. Mittal was the deemed PIO
whose assistance has been sought to provide the information. He made no effort to provide the
information. On 01/09/2010 Mr. V. P. Dahiya took charge and has again made no effort to
provide the information. Even as on today the information has not been supplied to the Appellant
and there appears to be some reasons why the information has not been supplied.
The Commission therefore directs the Present PIO Mr. R. Prasad to personally ensure that
the following information is provided clearly to the Appellant:
1- Photocopies of the notes on the file whereby you have informed the appellant
that “after the order of FAA no inspection of the house has been carried out”
and reasons for non compliance of order of FAA. If there are no notes this
must be stated.
2- Photocopy of the sanction building plan of the building no B2/3A, Model
Town, Delhi after 2004. If no building plan has been sanctioned after 2004
this should be clearly stated.
The Commission will hold Mr. R. Prasad personally responsible to provide the
information to the Appellant on the two points as described above before
30 September 2011, failing which the Commission will take action under
Section 20(1) and 20(2) against him.
In the instant case the Commission notes that two deemed PIOs Mr. V. P. Dahiya the then EE and
Mr. A. K. Mittal the then AE are clearly responsible jointly for not providing the information to
the appellant. Consequent to which no information has been provided to the Appellant until now.
Mr. V. P. Dahiya and Mr. A. K. Mittal are offering no reasons for not having provided the
information to the Appellant. They have informed the Commission that after 15/11/2010 Mr. J. S.
Yadav, EE had taken charge and therefore he was the deemed PIO for providing the information.
The Commission issues a showcause notice to Mr. J. S. Yadav, EE & Deemed PIO under Section
20(1) of the RTI Act to showcause why penalty should not be imposed on him for not providing
the information despite the order of the FAA.
Mr. J. S. Yadav, EE & Deemed PIO is directed to appear before the
Commission alongwith his written explanation on 12 September 2011 from
04.30PM onwards to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be
imposed on him.
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act states as follows:
” 20. Penalties.- (1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information
Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion
that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or
has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or
malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or
obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred
and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the
Page 4 of 7
total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as
the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is
imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the
Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act mandates the Commission to impose a penalty on the PIO where he
has, without reasonable cause:
1) Refused to receive a RTI application;
2) Not furnished information within the time specified under Section 7(1) of the RTI
Act i.e. 30 days;
3) Malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information, or destroyed information which was the subject of the request;
4) Obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.
The main purpose of the RTI Act is to provide the complete information within the time
prescribed under the RTI Act. At the time of deciding an Appeal or Complaint, if there is a delay
in providing the complete information within the time stipulated under the RTI Act, the
Commission can ascertain whether there is a reasonable cause for such delay. Where the
Commission determines that there is no reasonable explanation for the delay, it shall impose a
penalty on the PIO in the manner prescribed under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act i.e. Rs. 250 per
day of delay till the RTI application is received or the complete information is furnished, subject
to a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000.
The quantum of penalty to be imposed by the Commission is not discretionary in nature and is
based strictly on the methodology prescribed under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The burden of
proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as
per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act which stipulates that, “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to
prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request”.
Under the RTI Act, every public authority is required to designate as many officers as PIO in all
administrative offices or units under it, as may be necessary, to provide information to persons
requesting for information under the RTI Act. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the PIO to uphold the
citizens’ fundamental right to information by providing the complete information sought within
the prescribed time period. However, where the PIO fails to discharge this obligation, he is liable
to be penalised in accordance with Section 20(1) of the RTI Act i.e. Rs. 250 per day of delay till
the RTI application is received or the complete information is furnished, subject to a maximum
penalty of Rs. 25,000. It follows that Section 20(1) of the RTI Act stipulates that the PIO shall be
personally liable in the event he fails to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act where the
maximum penalty imposed on him shall not exceed Rs. 25,000. An upper limit of Rs. 25,000 has
been placed on the amount of penalty that may be imposed on the PIO to ensure that the penalty
imposed on an individual officer is not excessive and is in consonance with his pecuniary means.
The principle of having a maximum prescribed punishment of penalty is provided in legislations
with the intention that an offender should not be penalized more than a certain level for a certain
offence. The concept of providing punishment cannot be confused with a loan repayment where
the amount of loan may be shared with the different debaters.
Page 5 of 7
It has been observed that officers in a public authority are transferred frequently and hence, more
than one officer would have held the post of PIO in relation to a given Appeal or Complaint
before the Commission. In other cases PIO has to seek the assistance under Section 5(4) of the
RTI Act of more than one officer. In such cases, if each officer has, without any reasonable cause,
failed to provide the complete information within the prescribed time period, then he is liable to
be penalised under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Similarly, where information sought in a RTI
application pertains to different public authorities, then more than one PIO will be involved in the
matter. In such a situation, it is likely that more than one PIO may fail to furnish the complete
information within the prescribed time.
In the aforementioned scenarios, each officer who has, without reasonable cause, defaulted in
providing the information shall be liable to be penalised in accordance with Section 20(1) of the
RTI Act where the maximum penalty imposed on each officer shall not exceed Rs. 25,000.
Consequently, it is likely that the total penalty imposed in each such matter will exceed Rs.
25,000. It is pertinent to note that a plain reading of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act does not
envisage the scenarios described above. If Section 20(1) of the RTI Act is to be interpreted to
mean that the maximum penalty that can be imposed (in total) in an Appeal or Complaint before
the Commission shall not exceed Rs. 25,000, it shall not be in parity with the actual practices of a
public authority, as described above. Such a restrictive interpretation of Section 20(1) of the RTI
Act was neither envisaged by the Parliament nor would be operable in ensuring that all the
officers who are responsible for not discharging their obligations under the RTI Act in a given
matter are penalized.
Therefore, Section 20(1) of the RTI Act stipulates that in an Appeal or Complaint before the
Commission, an individual officer who, without reasonable cause, has failed to provide the
complete information within the prescribed time limit shall be penalized where the maximum
penalty imposed on each officer shall not exceed Rs. 25,000. Section 20(1) of the RTI Act lays
down in no uncertain terms that the penalty imposed on an individual officer shall be Rs. 250 per
day of delay. Section 20(1) of the RTI Act does not envisage any proportionate division of penalty
between officers responsible for the delay in providing the information. The interpretation given
to Section 20(1) of the RTI Act by this Commission appears to meet the words and intent of the
law makers.
In the instant case, no reasonable cause has been given for the delay in providing the information
to the Appellant. The Commission holds both the officers Mr. A. K. Mittal the then AE (CLZ)
presently AE(Pr-I), South Zone, Under Sevanagar Flyover, New Delhi-11 and Mr. V. P. Dahiya
the then EE(B) presently EE(M-VI) Central Zone, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi responsible
individually for the delay of over 100 days in providing the information. Since the delay in
providing the information is for over 100 days the Commission imposes the maximum penalty
under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for `25000/- each on both the officers.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds
this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. A. K. Mittal the then AE (CLZ) and Mr. V.
P. Dahiya the then EE(B CLZ). Since the delay in providing the information has
been over 100 days the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. A. K. Mittal
the then AE (CLZ) and Mr. V. P. Dahiya the then EE(B CLZ) Rs. 25000/- each
which is the maximum penalty under the Act.
Page 6 of 7
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the
amount of Rs.25000/- each from the salaries of Mr. A. K. Mittal the then AE (B
CLZ) and Mr. V. P. Dahiya the then EE(B CLZ) and remit the same by a demand
draft or a Banker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT,
payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint
Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd
Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110066. The amount may be deducted
at the rate of Rs 5000/- per month every month from the salary of Mr. A. K. Mittal
the then AE (CLZ) and Mr. V. P. Dahiya the then EE(B CLZ). The first two
cheques of Rs.5000/- will be sent before 10th of October 2011 and complete amount
will be remitted before 10th February, 2012.
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
14 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AP)
Copy:
1- The Municipal Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
04th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center,
New Delhi
2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
Page 7 of 7