CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003231/10734Penalty
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003231
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Inder Mohan Singh
K-92 A, Krishna Park Extension,
New Delhi-110018
Respondent : Mr. H. B. Singh
Public Information Officer
Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee
Guru Gobind Singh Bhavan,
Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib,
New Delhi-110001
RTI application filed on : 25/10/2010
PIO replied : 08/11/2010
First appeal filed on : 09/11/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 16/11/2010
Second Appeal received on : 19/11/2010
Information Sought:
1) Employment details of the concerned committee was sought such as whether according to the provision
in Regulation and functions of DSGMC, no member of DSGMC or relatives will be employed in the
office of DSGMC, school, institution and Gurdwaras under DSGMC.
2) Whether any action is taken against those who violate these provisions.
3) The authority which has the power to take action against the aforementioned people,
Reply of the Public Information Commissioner:
The proceedings in this regard were stayed by the High Court of Delhi till the final disposal of writ petitions.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The reply given was not in order as the writ petitions talked about had already been disposed of on 22/07/2010.
Therefore the plea taken was false.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
FAA upheld the reply of PIO without even hearing the appellant.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The information sought should be given to the appellant and respondents should be punished.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 31 December 2010:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Inder Mohan Singh;
Respondent : Mr. H. B. Singh, Public Information Officer ;
“The Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (DSGMC) was held to be a Public Authority by a
decision of this Commission in its decision no. CIC/SG/A/2009/000226/4219 dated 22/07/2009. The DSGMC
had challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court by its order in WP(C)720/2010
Page 1 of 4
had upheld the decision of the Commission on 22/07/2010. The Appellant had filed a RTI application seeking
information as mentioned above on 25/10/2010, and the PIO has given false information on 08/11/2010 stating
that the High Court of Delhi has stayed the decision of the Commission. The Appellant states that the First
Appellate Authority (FAA) during its hearing gave him a letter dated 16/11/2010 stating that a LPA was pending
before the High Court of Delhi. Thus it is clear that there is no stay of the order of the Commission or of the
order of the High Court concurring with the CIC that DSGMC is a Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the
RTI Act.
The DSGMC has been flouting the law of the land and refusing to operate as per the law. It appears that DSGMC
seems to believe that merely by stating that it intends to file a case in the court, they can flout orders given by the
statutory authorities and courts. No individual or institution can disobey order given by statutory authorities or
courts and unless a valid stay order is obtained. This is most unfortunate and the Commission strongly condemns
such unlawful actions of DSGMC. The Public Authority is denying citizens their fundamental right to
information by these actions. The Commission sees that the Appellant has been unnecessarily harassed by
denying information and forcing him to file a second appeal before the Commission. This is also putting a
burden on the public finances since this Commission is needlessly being called upon to adjudicate in a matter
repeatedly.
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. It may result in improving the
work culture and help in changing the outlook
The Commission under its powers under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act awards a compensation to the
Appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him. The Commission awards a compensation of Rs.1000/- to
be given to the Appellant.”
Commission’s Decision dated 31 December 2010:
The Appeal was allowed.
“The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as per the available records to the
Appellant before 20 January 2011.
He is also directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.1000/- as compensation is sent to the Appellant before 15
February 2011.
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.
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 25 January 2011 at 12.00pm alongwith
his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20
(1).
He will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof
of having sent the information to the appellant.”
Page 2 of 4
Relevant Facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 25 January 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. Inder Mohan Singh;
Respondent : Mr. H. B. Singh, Public Information Officer ;
The PIO states that he has not provided the information as per the order of the Commission since he has
been advised by Advocate Mr. Raj Kamal,-who is assisting Mr. K. T. S. Tulsi who is representing DSGMC in
Delhi High Court,- not to provide the information. He states that since a LPA is pending with the High Court he
was told that he should not give any written answer to the Commission and also not provide the information. He
states that he informed Mr. Raj Kamal that the Commission had said that unless there was a legally valid stay
from any High Court, the Commission’s orders have to be implemented. Mr. H. B. Singh, PIO states that he was
advised by Mr. Raj Kamal to wait for the outcome of the fate of the LPA.
The Commission strongly condemns the advice given by an officer of the Court Mr. Raj Kamal to disobey orders
passed by a statutory authority. The Commission notes that the PIO Mr. H. B. Singh is acting on the advice of
Mr. Raj Kamal who appears to have given advice contrary to the law to him. Since Mr. H. B. Singh has offered
no reasonable cause for not providing the information to the Appellant the Commission imposes a penalty on
him under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, “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 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.”
A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must impose
penalty:
1) Refusal to receive an application for information. 2) Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30 days. 3) Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading
information or destroying information which was the subject of the request
4) Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ‘ without reasonable cause’.
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated 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.”
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) of
section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till
the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has
to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the
matter. 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.
Page 3 of 4
The RTI application filed on 25/10/2010 and hence the information should have been provided to the Appellant
before 25/11/2010. Instead the information has not been provided to the Appellant even now. Since 60 days have
already elapsed the Commission is imposing a penalty on Mr. H. B. Singh, PIO at the rate of `250/- per day of
delay for 60 days i.e. `250/- X 60 days = `15000/-
The Commission issues summons to Mr. Paramjeet Singh Sarna, President, DSGMC
and Mr. H. B. Singh, PIO to come with the information and the relevant records to the
Commission on 07 February 2011 at 05.00PM.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1), the Commission finds this a fit case for
levying penalty on Mr. H. B. Singh, PIO. Since the delay in providing the correct
information has been of 60 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. H. B.
Singh for Rs.15000/-.
The President, of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee is directed to
recover the amount of Rs.15000/- from the salary of Mr. H. B. Singh 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/ each
month from the salary of Mr. H. B. Singh and remitted by the 10th of every month starting
from March 2011. The total amount of Rs.15000 /- will be remitted by 10th of May, 2011.
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
25 January 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PBR
CC: To,
1- Mr. Paramjeet Singh Sarna
President
Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee.
Guru Gobind Singh Bhawan,
Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib, 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 4 of 4