CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000233/12041
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000233
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Gupta
704, G. T. Road,
Shahdara, Delhi
Respondent : Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj
Public Information Officer & Administrative Officer
Central Establishment Department,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
22nd Floor, Civic Center,
Minto Road, Delhi;
RTI application filed on : 22/09/2010 PIO replied : 25/11/2010 First appeal filed on : 12/11/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 31/12/2010 Second Appeal received on : 25/01/2011 Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Copy of the order by High Court in MCD Vs Anuvadak Sangh on Order enclosed.
15/07/2010.
2. Complete action taken as per this order. The matter is under
consideration .
3. How many post for Anuvadaks were created? —-Do———
4. How many post for Anuvadaks are vacant and actions taken to fill On post for SC category is
these posts? vacant.
5. As per new promotion quota how many post for Superintendents, As per Sl. 2 & 5.
Sr. Steno and Anuvadaks are vacant. Whether these are for
reserved category or Fixed category.
First Appeal:
The PIO has not provided the information within the time specified in the RTI Act.
Order of the FAA:
“The appellant vide his appeal, available in the file, stated that he has not been given complete reply
and whatsoever has been provided is not correct in respect of the above ID. The appellant was called
for hearing on 20.12.2010 at 2:00 PM before the undersigned. He appeared in person and reiterates his
allegations in the appeal. I have perused the application of the applicant/appellant as well as the reply
given by the PlO, CED-Il. It reveals that a more detailed and complete information could have been
given against point Nos.2 to 5 of the application to the appellant/Applicant.
In view of above, PIO/CED(II) is hereby directed to provide the complete and detailed information
against point No. 2 to 5, to the applicant free of cost within 10 working days under intimation to the
undersigned. The present appeal stands disposed off in line with the above directions.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Specific information was not provided. The FAA’s order was also defied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Gupta;
Respondent : Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, Public Information Officer & Administrative Officer;
The appellant states that the information given to him was not attested. He has shown this to
the Respondent who has informed the Commission that Mr. Rajendra Sharma the then PIO was
responsible for not having attested the photocopies.
The Appellant also pointed out that the FAA had clearly directed the PIO CED-II to provide the
complete and detailed information against point-2 to 5 to the applicant free of cost within 10 working
days. The order has been given on 31/12/2010, hence the information should have been provided to the
Appellant before 15/01/2011.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj is directed to provide the information as directed
by the FAA to the Appellant before 05 May 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by Mr.
Rajendra Sharma the then PIO 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. 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.
Mr. Rajendra Sharma the then PIO will present himself before the Commission at the above address
on 20 May 2011 at 10.30am 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
19 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SM)
CC:
To,
Mr. Rajendra Sharma the then PIO through Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, PIO & AO;