CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000231/7090
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000231
Appellant : Mr. Birinder Singh
C-1, Saket Place,
New Delhi-110017.
Respondent : Mr. Suresh Chandra
PIO & SE
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Nigam Bhawan, Anand Parbat,
Karol Bagh Zone,
New Delhi-110005.
RTI application filed on : 29/09/2009
PIO replied : 22/10/2009
First Appeal filed on : 03/11/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 24/12/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 28/01/2010
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 04/02/2010
Hearing Held on : 09/03/2010
Sr. Information sought PIO's reply
1. Copies of all complaints lodged by owner No complaint has been received in this regard
of A-71/2, Naraina Vihar against A-71/1, till date. May please also clarify which type of
Naraina Vihar property. details of complaints is required i.e. with regard
to encroachment, misuse of property,
unauthorized construction etc.
2. Copies of all complaints received by KBZ -As above-
from steering committee against A-71/1,
Naraina Vihar Property.
3. Copy of reply sent by KBZ to steering -Please refer to reply at point 1 above.
committee.
Grounds for First Appeal:
False information received from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
"Appellant has received the reply from Executive Engineer (M)-II stating that no such complaint
has been received by him. Appellant further clarified that said complaint was against the
unauthorized construction and through the present application he wanted to have copy of that
complaint. The copy so requested has not been supplied to him. Executive Engineer
(Bldg.)/Deemed PIO is directed to give a copy of the records are available, within 2 weeks of the
issue of this order."
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the FAA's order by the PIO.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. K. K. Noomba representing Mr. Birinder Singh;
Respondent: Mr. Kaptan Singh, Assistant Engineer and Deemed PIO;
The Respondents admit that they had not provided any information after the order of the
First Appellate Authority.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before 25
March 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the PIO Mr. Suresh Chandra within 30 days as required by the law.
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.
Mr. Suresh Chandra, PIO will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
14 April 2010 at 11.00am 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
09 March 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AK)