CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000039/2568
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000039
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Dipender Handa
A -130, Old Gupta Colony
2nd Floor, Delhi -110009
Respondent : The S.E. (Civil Lines Zone) &
Public Information Officer
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Civil Lines Zone, 16, Rajpur Road,
Delhi -110054
RTI Application filed on : 17/10/2008
APIO : Not mentioned
First Appeal filed on : 28/11/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 16/12/2008
Second Appeal filed on : ————
Information Sought:
The appellant had sought information from Superintending Engineer (Civil Lines Zone),MCD
through his 18 question regarding number of buildings being constructed with or without
sanction plan, about ownership of such property/construction, quality of materials used, lay-out
plat was sanctioned or not, officers responsible for illegal construction/encroachment etc.
PIO’s Reply:
Not mentioned.
Not satisfied by the Reply of PIO the appellant filed First Appeal.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
The First Appellate Authority ordered “The main ground of appeal is non-supply of information
from the PIO sought by the appellant under the Right to Information Act-2005. The PIO is
directed to furnish a reply within a week’s time positively.”
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Mr. Dipender Handa
Respondent: Mr. Pushkar Sharma PIO Civil lines zone.
The PIO had sought the assistance of Mr. Surender Singh Executive Engineer buildings under
Section 5 (4) on 17/10/2008 yet the deemed PIO did not provide the information until
22/1/2009.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The complete information has been sent to the appellant on 22/1/2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the deemed PIO Mr. Sureder Singh 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 20 April, 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
April 1, 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)