Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Shailender Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 July, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr.Shailender Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 July, 2010
                          CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                              Club Building (Near Post Office)
                            Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                   Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                         Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000411/8292Adjunct
                                                                   Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000411

Complainant                      :          Mr. Shailender Singh
                                            60 A, Humayunpur,
                                            Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi-110029.

Respondent                        :         Ms. Juhi Mukherjee
                                            Public Information Officer & SDM
                                            O/o SDM (Hauz Khas)
                                            Government of N.C.T. of Delhi
                                            Old Tehsil Building, Mehrauli, Delhi.

Facts

arising from the Complaint:

Mr. Shailender Singh had filed an RTI application with the PIO/SDM (Hauz Khas), GNCTD, Delhi on
08/02/2010 asking for certain information. However on not having received the information within the
mandated time, the Complainant filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. On
this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the PIO/SDM (Hauz Khas), GNCTD, Delhi on 06/04/2010 with
a direction to provide the information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not furnishing
the information within the mandated time.

The Commission has neither received a copy of the information sent to the Complainant, nor has it
received any explanation from the PIO for not supplying the information to the Complainant. Therefore, the
only presumption that can be made is that the PIO has deliberately and without any reasonable cause refused
to give information as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Failure on the part of the PIO to respond to the
Commission’s notice shows that there is no reasonable cause for the refusal of information.

Commission’s Decision 24/06/2010:

“The Complaint is allowed.

In view of the aforesaid, the PIO is hereby directed to provide the complete information in regard to
the RTI Application dated 08/02/2010 to the Complainant before 13/07/2010 with a copy to the Commission.
From the facts before the Commission, it appears that you have not provided the correct and complete
information within the mandated time and has failed to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act. The delay
and inaction on the PIO’s part in providing the information amounts to willful disobedience of the
Commission’s direction as well and also raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may be
malafide.

The PIO is hereby directed to present himself before the Commission on 20/07/2010 at 03.00 pm
along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action
be recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act. Further, the PIO may serve this
notice to such person (s) who are responsible for this delay in providing the information, and may direct them
to be present before the Commission along with the PIO on the aforesaid scheduled date and time. If the
information has already been supplied to the complainant, bring a copy of the same to the Commission with
your written submissions, and also proof of seeking assistance from other person(s), if any.”

Page 1 of 2

Relevant facts emerging during showcause hearing on 20/07/2010:
Respondent: Ms. Juhi Mukherjee, PIO & SDM (Hauz Khas);

The PIO & SDM Ms. Juhi Mukherjee has submitted that she had joined as the SDM (HK) only on
18/03/2010. She has further stated that most of her subordinate staff was transferred in the months of April
and May without providing any replacements. Further, new officials have joined in the month of June 2010
and have taken over the charge. The information had been provided to the Complainant on 13/05/2010.

On perusal of information provided on 13/05/2010 by the PIO, the Commission has observed that in
respect to Query nos. 5 to 8 of the RTI application the PIO replied that the matter was pertaining to the LAC
Branch. Further, the PIO forwarded the RTI application to the LAC Branch only on 07/07/2010.

The PIO states that the delay in providing the information was because of the following reasons which she has
given in writing:

1- In February 2010 three different SDMs/PIOs changed in quick succession.
2- She was holding additional charge of three sub-divisions can came to hold the exclusive charge of
SDM(HK) only on 18/03/2010.

3- In April-May most of the sub-ordinate staffs got transferred without any replacement.
4- Even after this vacant posts of seven officials have not been filled.
5- No handing over taking charges took place till June 2010 when three new officials joined.

Effectively the PIO is claiming that the SDM’s office was incapable of providing the information in the
interim period. If this is true it means that other services to citizens were also not been provided. The PIO
admits that various certificates like caste, income, domicile etc which are expected to be supplied to the
citizens within specific timeframes. The Delhi Government is proposing Service Level Agreements
guarantying services within specific timeframes and if this is the way the offices and staffs are managed it
appears incapable of providing governance as per the promised norms. The Commission accepts the reason
given by the PIO but decides that the Complainant must be compensated for the loss and detriment suffered by
him of having to file the complaint and following with the Commission. The complainant has also received
the information very late hence the Commission awards compensation of Rs.2000/- to the Complainant.

As per the powers given to the Commission under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act the Commission recommends
to the Chief Secretary Delhi Government to take a closure look at the situation described by the PIO and try
and take corrective measures so that PIOs are able to discharge their duties under RTI Act.

Adjunct Decision:

The Commission directs the PIO to ensure that a cheque for compensation of Rs. 2000/- is
sent to the Complainant before 15 August 2010.

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, 2005.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SP)
CC:

To,
Mr. Rakesh Mehta
Chief Secretary
Government of NCT of Delhi
Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi – 110002
Page 2 of 2