CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00091/2172
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00091
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sube Singh,
House No. 274, Bawana,
Delhi-110039.
Respondent : SDM & PIO,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Alipur, Narala Zone,
New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 31/01/2008
PIO replied : not replied.
First appeal filed on : 13/03/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 31/03/2008
Second Appeal filed on : 25/10/2008
The appellant had asked in RTI application for details and information of Khasra
Girdaqari in P4 & P5 form after inspecting his corps sown appellant wants information
about the action by the Hon’ble SDM office on his application, and Khasra no. 73/4 (4-16)
and Khasra No. 74/25 (4-16) Bawana (Revenue Estate). The appellant wants information
of the action taken on his applications and orders of the Hon’ble High Courts vide writ
No. 14354/2005, by the C.O. office.
Detail of information required:-
1. The appellant wants information about the action taken by the Hon’ble SDM office on
his application.
2. Inspecting his corps sown in Khasra No. 73/4(4-16) and Khasra No. 74/25(4-16)
Bawana rakba.
3. The appellant wants information of the action taken on his application and orders of the
Hon’ble High Court vide writ No. 14354/2005. by the C.O. office. And give information
of the action taken on all the application listed.
4. Details of application diarized at C.O./Tehsildar Narela office and the corps sown at
that time.
The PIO replied.
Not replied.
The First Appellate Authority ordered.
“Appellant stated in the appeal that he has not received any reply from PIO/SDM
(Narela) till date. On perusal of records it reveals that indeed no reply has gone.
PIO/SDM(Narela) is directed to furnish suitable reply to the appellant within 15 working days.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Sube Singh
Respondent: Mr. Deepak Kumar on behalf Mr. Kunal PIO
The action taken must be given in detail to the appellant by the PIO. The PIO is warned to
ensure that a proper detailed report of action taken giving dates, names of officers with the
designations must be provided to the appellant. The respondent states that a decision has been
taken in the matter. A copy of the decision will also be provided to the appellant.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information will be sent to the appellant before 15 March, 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO 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 Mr. Kunal 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 25 March, 2009. He will also submit proof of having
given the information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
4th March 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)