CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002046/9697
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002046
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr.Shiv Nath
S/o Sh.Balwant
Post Office:Ghitorani, Near Talab,
New Delhi-110030.
Respondent : Mr. S. K. Taneja
Public Information Officer & SE-II
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
O/o S.E.-II Green Park, South Zone,
New Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 20/04/2010
PIO replied : 13/05/2010
First appeal filed on : 25/05/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 14/06/2010
Sl. Information sought Reply of PIO
1. Provide the measures adopted by the deptt. on the Department is in process of issuing
complaints received . guidelines for the methods to be adopted
2. Action taken on the complaints received by the Total complaints received on that date is
department dated on 02/01/20098 and the no. of 12 and the pending no. of complaints are
complaints received by the deptt. On that particular 4.
date and the pending complaints for the action to be
taken.
3. Action taken on the appellant’s complaint, the daily The complaints were received.
progress and the concerned officer dealing with the
same.
4. Provide the names of the dealing hand or the As per the reply no. 3
concerned officer along with their designation dealing
or responsible for the delay.
5. State the action which would be taken against the Asked information is not an information
defaulting officer. according to the section 2(f)of the RTI
Act 2005
6. State the time period which for taking the action for As per above
the same.
7. Provide the approximate time period to take the action As per above
on the complaint.
8. Provide the information on the above queries. Information is being given
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO.
Page 1 of 3
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
“The PIO informed that the information was sent on the basis of records. However, on perusal of reply
issued by PIO it was observed that the information with regard to Q.No.1& 3 needs more elaboration and
hence needs to be reviewed. PIO is directed to issue the reviewed reply within 10 days of appeal.”
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the FAA’s order by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr.Shiv Nath;
Respondent: Mr. Aqil Ahmed, AE on behalf of Mr. S. K. Taneja, Public Information Officer & SE-II;
Mr. Rajeev Kumar, UDC;
The respondent admits that no information has been provided to the appellant after the order of the
First Appellate Authority (FAA). The respondent states that order of the FAA was given to AE-IV Mr.
Ram Kumar Sharma on 21/06/2010 to provide the information and Mr. Sharma is responsible for not
providing the information.
Mr. Aqil Ahmed will provide information on query-1 stating whether any norms of disposal of complaints
in MCD. For query-3 he will provide the information in the following format:
Date on which Name and designation of Action taken Date on which forwarded to
Complaint received The officer receiving it. Next officer/office.
*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the complaint.
Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided.
It is apparent that the appellant has been unnecessarily harassed in having to file a second appeal before
the Commission since information was not provided to him inspite of the order of the FAA. In view of
this the Commission decides to award a compensation to the appellant under its powers under
Section19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. The Commission awards the compensation of Rs.1000/- to the appellant
for the loss and detriment suffered by him of filing a second appeal, coming for the hearing and getting
the information after delay.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Commission directs Mr. Aqil Ahmed to provide the information on the query 1
& 3 as directed above to the appellant before 20 October 2010.
The PIO Mr. S. K. Taneja is directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.1000/- is sent to the
appellant before 30 November 2010.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
deemed PIO/AE-IV Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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.
Page 2 of 3
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. Ram Kumar Sharma, AE-IV will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
02 December 2010 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.
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
08 October 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AK)
CC:
To,
AE-IV Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma through Mr. R. K. Taneja, PIO & SE-II;
Page 3 of 3